Genetic expression within Mendelian limitations prevent evolution

[Kirkwhisper]

So let the Darwinian element here try it...let any evolutionist try to establish the genetic formula for our supposed 'common ancestor' from which we were supposed to have diverged some 3.7 million (approx) yrs ago.

It should be easy since nature supposedly did it blindly.

But since only organisms on the species level produce offspring easily and those on the genus level reproduce sterile offspring then what recourse do they have in establishing that nature can evolve one type of organism into a classifiably, identifiably different organism?

But let's notice the limitations God place upon living organisms in genetic expression of the various gene pools of living things. Take for instance:

Different species of Equs can mate but the offspring is sterile. And since one cannot divide the 63 chromosomes in half, the conclusion about the total for n = ? It's a mystery. An odd number of chromosomes (2n=63) is not divisible by two. The haploid number of a mule is not 31.5 because you can't have half of a chromosome in the gametes. Such animals can mate with horses or with donkeys and sometimes reproduce offspring but they are usually infertile.​

Then there is this:​

The depicted felines above are all in the family Felidae, but no matter how many times these organisms are cross bred no one has every seen anything but lions & tigers but no bears. Oh, my! Sounds ridiculous. Of course it is but none has ever seen felines reproduce offspring that is anything other than Felidae. The same with Zebras/horses; the same with donkeys/zebras; the same with turkeys/chickens. etc.​

Let's go further:​

This is called a 'rabbage'; a cross between a raddish & cabbage. (family: brassicaceae)​

Such plants have been known to grow up to four feet long in some places. The formula for producing such offspring is illustrated above and it well known among botanists and/or geneticists.​

Now, where is the genetic formula for the divisionary break between humans (homo) & our so-called common ancestor (homini)?​

Since humans have 46 chromosomes and chimps have 48 chromosomes then why can't humans and chimps successfully cross? Where is that missing element in what should be just as easy to identify as were the organisms I mentioned above?​

This problem here is referred to as chromosomal polymorphism: a condition where one species contains members with varying chromosomes counts or shapes. But so far, there have been no scientifically verified specimens of a human/ape hybrid.​

Where is the genetic formula which reveals the divergance of homo sapiens from chimps and why has there never been anything in the world such as a 'humanzee'? We have ligers, tigons, zorses, & rabbages but no 'humanzee's'. Why?​

Keep in mind that the question here is two-pronged.​

 

[shernren]

"How can trees ever grow twigs from branches? After all, it's not like we ever see two twigs grow together into a branch."

 

[Gozreht]

Does this count as a humanzee?

Now of course I am a layman in scientific fields of study but I only got one response to a similar type of question. Christian Thoughts: LIX. The Antitheory of Evolution. Where is all the steps of genetic mutation? Each generation has to mate with another species with the same mutation to keep reproducing the same mutation. Then a whole new generation has to have that specific mutation. Then the process has to start all over again. But we only have the "end results" of each mutation. We don't have all the steps that evolutionists say we have. Thereby, making the theory still only a theory, yet we treat it as natural law.

 

[Assyrian]

Does this count as a humanzee?

It's eerie how close it looks to:

Now of course I am a layman in scientific fields of study but I only got one response to a similar type of question. Christian Thoughts: LIX. The Antitheory of Evolution. Where is all the steps of genetic mutation? Each generation has to mate with another species with the same mutation to keep reproducing the same mutation. Then a whole new generation has to have that specific mutation. Then the process has to start all over again. But we only have the "end results" of each mutation. We don't have all the steps that evolutionists say we have. Thereby, making the theory still only a theory, yet we treat it as natural law.

No, even if the mate doesn't have the gene there is a 50% chance their child wild have it and if they have two children a 25% change both will. If you are talking about neutral mutations, with no selection pressure, each gene in the population has the same chance of being great great ... great grandmother of that locus in the whole population. So if you have a population of 500, there are 1000 version of the gene and each one has a 0.1% chance of spreading through the whole population. So going back to your example, even though there is only one copy of the mutation, your mutation has a 0.1% change of taking over the whole population. If the population was 5,000, it would have a 0.01% chance of being it. The bigger the population the lower the chances of being the one to take over, but, it also means you have a bigger population of mutant genes each buying their own lottery ticket.

 

[Smidlee]

It's eerie how close it looks to:

Yeap. Both are created by man's imagination. I figure you are not suggesting this bones are a direct line of human ancestor which why they are sometimes refer to "bones of contention." As Mary Leakey an ape-man believer admitted "All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense."
Also where's all the missing chimp fossils. They also seem to have suddenly appeared with no connection with this mythological ape-man ancestor. Paleontologist has to add all the "ape-like" fossils to the human line leaving none for the chimp line. This reveals "human" bias in interpreting these fossils.

 

[Gozreht]

No, even if the mate doesn't have the gene there is a 50% chance their child wild have it and if they have two children a 25% change both will. If you are talking about neutral mutations, with no selection pressure, each gene in the population has the same chance of being great great ... great grandmother of that locus in the whole population. So if you have a population of 500, there are 1000 version of the gene and each one has a 0.1% chance of spreading through the whole population. So going back to your example, even though there is only one copy of the mutation, your mutation has a 0.1% change of taking over the whole population. If the population was 5,000, it would have a 0.01% chance of being it. The bigger the population the lower the chances of being the one to take over, but, it also means you have a bigger population of mutant genes each buying their own lottery ticket.

You just reminded me of high school and doing all of those Punnett Squares . I guess 0.1% is better odds tan me winning the lottery. What are the odds that this recessive gene would take over the population? And then repeat itself with a different mutation? This is not a criticism/sacrcastic question. It is genuine. I would like to know.

 

[Gozreht]

About the chart...
From what I know a watermelon is around 95% water. A cloud is 100% water. That 5% makes the world of difference. So closeness of traits or make up doesn't necessarily mean relation does it?

But I do agree that there is a lot of similarities between us and apes but that belongs on the other thread I am no longer a part of.

 

[sfs]

You just reminded me of high school and doing all of those Punnett Squares . I guess 0.1% is better odds tan me winning the lottery. What are the odds that this recessive gene would take over the population? And then repeat itself with a different mutation? This is not a criticism/sacrcastic question. It is genuine. I would like to know.

The odds of any particular mutation taking over are quite small, as Assyrian noted. The odds of some mutation taking over, and then another, and then another are very good -- it's certain to happen, in fact. If there are 10,000 individuals in the population, and each one has 50 new mutations (which is roughly right for humans, incidentally), then 500,000 new mutations occur every generation, and of which 50 will reach 100% frequency. So lots of genetic change is actually happening all the time.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

You just reminded me of high school and doing all of those Punnett Squares . I guess 0.1% is better odds tan me winning the lottery. What are the odds that this recessive gene would take over the population? And then repeat itself with a different mutation? This is not a criticism/sacrcastic question. It is genuine. I would like to know.

They can't do punnett squares describing the divergance between man and his so-called common ancestor because they don't know what it was. That's the whole point. If they could (as easily as it is done with horses/donkeys, lions/tigers, zebras/horses...etc. then we wouldn't be debating the issue at all.

Thanks and God bless.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

The odds of any particular mutation taking over are quite small, as Assyrian noted. The odds of some mutation taking over, and then another, and then another are very good -- it's certain to happen, in fact. If there are 10,000 individuals in the population, and each one has 50 new mutations (which is roughly right for humans, incidentally), then 500,000 new mutations occur every generation, and of which 50 will reach 100% frequency. So lots of genetic change is actually happening all the time.

What he didn't tell the reader is that virtually all mutations (that are not neutral) are harmful. The 'beneficial mutations' observed are almost always genetically engineered.

Quote: ' Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.' (Wikipedia)

I am still waiting for the Darwinists to post the formula describing the change revealing man's divergance from a so-called 'common ancestor'. and it needs to be something more than ones imagination.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Yeap. Both are created by man's imagination. I figure you are not suggesting this bones are a direct line of human ancestor which why they are sometimes refer to "bones of contention." As Mary Leakey an ape-man believer admitted "All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense."
Also where's all the missing chimp fossils. They also seem to have suddenly appeared with no connection with this mythological ape-man ancestor. Paleontologist has to add all the "ape-like" fossils to the human line leaving none for the chimp line. This reveals "human" bias in interpreting these fossils.

Good point, Smidlee.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Also where's all the missing chimp fossils. They also seem to have suddenly appeared with no connection with this mythological ape-man ancestor. Paleontologist has to add all the "ape-like" fossils to the human line leaving none for the chimp line. This reveals "human" bias in interpreting these fossils.

You're mistaken. Chimpanzee fossils were found in the Rift Valley in Kenya in 2004, in roughly the same area many hominin fossils have been found. There's also a long list of fossils which are considered to be apes rather than human ancestors.

 

[Smidlee]

You're mistaken. Chimpanzee fossils were found in the Rift Valley in Kenya in 2004, in roughly the same area many hominin fossils have been found. There's also a long list of fossils which are considered to be apes rather than human ancestors.

There are severe that's a few hundred thousands years old (as I mention the sudden appearance ). There is also the few modern gorilla bones they found a few years ago that suppose to be 11+ millions year old which throw a wrench in evolutionist's predictions.
(This is not to mention the fact evolutionists has be shown to be wrong in the past when interpreting teeth.)

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

There are severe that's a few hundred thousands years old (as I mention the sudden appearance ). There is also the few modern gorilla bones they found a few years ago that suppose to be 11+ millions year old which throw a wrench in evolutionist's predictions.
(This is not to mention the fact evolutionists has be shown to be wrong in the past when interpreting teeth.)

I don't quite see how that would throw a wrench in our predictions.

The oldest known species of gorilla that I know of is Chororapithecus, which lived about 10 million years ago. According to DNA evidence humans and chimps split away from gorillas roughly 8 million years ago. There are also quite a few creatures which lived before the great apes split into separate groups.

But yeah, interpreting teeth can be difficult, I'll give you that.

 

[sfs]

What he didn't tell the reader is that virtually all mutations (that are not neutral) are harmful. The 'beneficial mutations' observed are almost always genetically engineered.

I didn't tell him that because that wasn't an answer to his question. The first fact you mentioned, that is. The second fact is wrong. Very few beneficial mutations have been genetically engineered, and quite a few have been observed in the wild.

Quote: ' Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.' (Wikipedia)

Quite correct, and well known to geneticists. Why do you believe them when they tell you this, but not believe them when they tell you that genetic evidence overwhelmingly supports common descent?

I am still waiting for the Darwinists to post the formula describing the change revealing man's divergance from a so-called 'common ancestor'. and it needs to be something more than ones imagination.

It's not clear what you're asking for here. The degree of divergence between human and various common ancestors (the common ancestor with chimpanzees, for example, or the one with orangutans) is pretty well known, as are the specific changes that have occurred. Which of the large number of changes are functionally important is hardly known at all. (Why should it be, when we're only beginning to puzzle out what most of the functional genome does?) How there could be a formula for any of this I can't imagine.

 

[Assyrian]

Yeap. Both are created by man's imagination. I figure you are not suggesting this bones are a direct line of human ancestor which why they are sometimes refer to "bones of contention." As Mary Leakey an ape-man believer admitted "All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense."
Also where's all the missing chimp fossils. They also seem to have suddenly appeared with no connection with this mythological ape-man ancestor. Paleontologist has to add all the "ape-like" fossils to the human line leaving none for the chimp line. This reveals "human" bias in interpreting these fossils.

Actually only the Clinton pics were created by human imagination. The bones are real. Do you have a context for the Mary Leaky quote? I find quotes creationists use take on a very different complexion when you see what the person was actually talking about. Anyway the evidence for evolution is in the transitional fossils we have found, not one that that are missing. There are plenty of reasons not to have found fossils from creatures that lived in dense forest, where fossils don't preserve well, especially when palaeontologists out looking in areas that were savannah when the hominids lived there. There is no reason for separately created ape kinds to show gradually increasing brain size looking more and more human as time goes on, and fitting beautifully what you would expect if humans evolved from earlier forms of ape. Didn't Dawkin's look at the hypothesis australopithicus were ancestral chimps in his book the Ancestor's Tale? It certainly hasn't been isn't established but it isn't dismissed out of hand either. Don't forget, even if australopithicus was shown to be a chimp ancestor, it would still be closer to humans than chimps, which is why it look so much like other early hominids. I think the real bias we have here is the creationist inability to look at the fossils and see the gradual change to more and more human.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

I didn't tell him that because that wasn't an answer to his question. The first fact you mentioned, that is. The second fact is wrong. Very few beneficial mutations have been genetically engineered, and quite a few have been observed in the wild.

Document that fact. Let us see it. We don't want opinions...which is what you usually throw at us.

Quite correct, and well known to geneticists. Why do you believe them when they tell you this, but not believe them when they tell you that genetic evidence overwhelmingly supports common descent?

What? They have none. Not only can they not demonstrate that one organism can transform into another type of organism they can't even demonstrate how nature did it genetically...hence the challenge in the OP. What can be so easily demonstrated (a la the documentated changes I posted above) cannot be done by those of your ilk as it regards an identifiable change from one organism into another classifiably different organism.

Warning: do not throw at us an example of changes within species, i.e. Lenskis phony claim of evolution of bacteria (e coli) that eats citrate...and yet it's still bacteria. Or..........moths that change colors but are still moths. Is that understandable?

In other words, you have to do better than this:

...lots of changes in the species...but all still flies.

And you better be able to do better than this:

The so-called evolution of the horse; yet all are still horses (Equidae).

It's not clear what you're asking for here. The degree of divergence between human and various common ancestors (the common ancestor with chimpanzees, for example, or the one with orangutans) is pretty well known, as are the specific changes that have occurred. Which of the large number of changes are functionally important is hardly known at all. (Why should it be, when we're only beginning to puzzle out what most of the functional genome does?) How there could be a formula for any of this I can't imagine.

That's why I ILLUSTRATED what I was asking for in the OP. Good grief! I laid it out for you neo-Darwinians in no uncertain terms.

Not clear? That's not at all surprising since you can't even understand those of your own persuasion who disagree with ideas that you were Orwellianized with. Not only can evolutionist biologists & geneticists not give us the kind of formula as I posted in the OP they can't even do a Punnett square demonstrating the divergance of homo from hominini. They can't give such a formula from one organism or many organisms.

But if you think you can do it then try. No guesswork or phony charts. We want the facts just like I revealed them in the horse/donkey, cabbage/radish, lion/tiger (etc.) evidence I gave to begin with.

And don't throw at us your usual diversion tactic like, 'throw out 'matter' and don't call it 'mass' junk. Don't think that we do not see through such clap trap.

We don't want clever art-work. We want formulas that verify your position.

 

[Assyrian]

You just reminded me of high school and doing all of those Punnett Squares . I guess 0.1% is better odds tan me winning the lottery. What are the odds that this recessive gene would take over the population? And then repeat itself with a different mutation? This is not a criticism/sacrcastic question. It is genuine. I would like to know.

The 0.1% is the odds of taking over the population. Remember, while your chance of winning the lottery is small, the chances of there being a winner is quite large because there are loads of players. You don't have to wait for it to be fixed be in the population before playing again, you can start from the very next generation. Remember if the second generation variant wins the lottery they are all descended from the first generation gene too.

 

[Gozreht]

The odds of any particular mutation taking over are quite small, as Assyrian noted. The odds of some mutation taking over, and then another, and then another are very good -- it's certain to happen, in fact. If there are 10,000 individuals in the population, and each one has 50 new mutations (which is roughly right for humans, incidentally), then 500,000 new mutations occur every generation, and of which 50 will reach 100% frequency. So lots of genetic change is actually happening all the time.

But wouldn't that mean there would be 500,000 different species of humans? I am not referring to mutations as physical characteristics of people like larger craniums, smaller feet, etc. They would still be human. I am referring to growing opposable thumbs. Having four chambers in our heart instead of two. Losing gills. Losing opposable thumbs on our feet. Those would be different animals. And then to get one new complete speices one whole generation would have to have the exact mutation as everyone else in the group or otherwise again we would have over 500,000 varaiations of human beings.

 

[Gozreht]

erased. i didn't think the last post was saved.