Mutations and Evolution

[Zosimus]

Those recessive genes were produced by mutations.

Speculation. Unless you believe that God created Adam with a perfect genome, you cannot make that claim.

We also have examples of children born with genetic diseases when neither parent carries the disease allele.

Irrelevant.

"I estimate per nucleotide rates of spontaneous mutations of different kinds in humans directly from the data on per locus mutation rates and on sequences of de novo nonsense nucleotide substitutions, deletions, insertions, and complex events at eight loci causing autosomal dominant diseases and 12 loci causing X-linked diseases."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12497628

Similarly irrelevant. Since I said "Many genetic diseases...," nothing in that quote addresses what I've said.

These are dominant alleles that only take one copy in order to produce the disease, and they include such diseases as achondroplasia and hemophilia.

Irrelevant. Nothing in this claim in any way addresses whether many genetic diseases occur when a child receives two recessive genes from a parent that result in a disease.

Also, these diseases are directly linked to DNA sequence, contrary to your claims.

Irrelevant. Lethal genetic diseases are lethal for the same reason that lethal swiss cheese is lethal, friendly swiss cheese is friendly, and friendly cats are friendly. It doesn't matter what kind or how many word substitutions I make, the statement is still true and has nothing to do with DNA, phenotypes, swiss cheese, or cats.

For the set of all X, all lethal X are lethal. This is a true statement even if there are no members of the set of X.

 

[[serious]]

All right. Since you think that natural selection has predictive power, I offer you this simple opportunity to make a prediction.

A certain island contains only finches. As an experiment, we propose to release a breeding pair of domestic housecats on the island. Which of the following will happen?

A) The finches will all be killed.
B) The finches will move to another island.
C) Fewer finches will live on the island as some are eaten by cats, but no phenotypic change will be noted.
D) Finches with certain traits (which?) will survive, and those traits will become more prevalent.
E) The cats will fail to find enough food and die.

This ought to be good...

Most likely D, but we have insufficient information.

We can exclude B and C
B is right out. If there is another island in flight distance that can support them, they would already have spread to that island as well.
C is likewise nonsense. Some subset of the finches will be more or less likely to be eaten by the cats, meaning there will be phenotypic change.

Are there other finch predators on the island? If no, odds that the finches will have poor predator avoidance increases, increasing the likelihood of A.

E is also a possibility if the finches live primarily in places the cats can't get to and if there is not sufficient alternative food sources. E may also occur with A, meaning your options are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Loudmouth]

Speculation. Unless you believe that God created Adam with a perfect genome, you cannot make that claim.

We can observe those mutations occurring.

Irrelevant.

Relevant.

Similarly irrelevant. Since I said "Many genetic diseases...," nothing in that quote addresses what I've said.

We have direct observations of de novo mutations causing genetic diseases. That is completely relevant.

Irrelevant. Nothing in this claim in any way addresses whether many genetic diseases occur when a child receives two recessive genes from a parent that result in a disease.

The whole point is that mutations are responsible for changing DNA sequences that result in disease phenotypes. We have direct observations of de novo mutations causing genetic diseases.

Irrelevant. Lethal genetic diseases are lethal for the same reason that lethal swiss cheese is lethal, friendly swiss cheese is friendly, and friendly cats are friendly. It doesn't matter what kind or how many word substitutions I make, the statement is still true and has nothing to do with DNA, phenotypes, swiss cheese, or cats.

What makes them genetic diseases if not their DNA sequences?

 

[Zosimus]

Most likely D, but we have insufficient information.

We can exclude B and C
B is right out. If there is another island in flight distance that can support them, they would already have spread to that island as well.
C is likewise nonsense. Some subset of the finches will be more or less likely to be eaten by the cats, meaning there will be phenotypic change.

Are there other finch predators on the island? If no, odds that the finches will have poor predator avoidance increases, increasing the likelihood of A.

E is also a possibility if the finches live primarily in places the cats can't get to and if there is not sufficient alternative food sources. E may also occur with A, meaning your options are not mutually exclusive.

Most of your claims of insufficient information are merely a matter of poor reading comprehension. You have asked: "Are there other finch predators on the island?" No, there are only finches (and the things finches eat–plants, seeds, fruit... and rocks... dirt... etc.).

You have talked about the likelihood of this or that. Yet all of this is nonsense. How can you talk about the probability of D occurring? It is not that we have multiple islands and that if we release the cats on all of these islands that possibility D will occur a set percentage of the time. Either D will occur, or D will not occur.

In reality, of course, what will happen is one of the above. And yes, I'm certainly aware that if all finches are eaten then the cats will die too, because on the hypothetical island there are only finches. However, regardless what happens natural selection proponents will say, "You see? It happened exactly as we predicted." By predicting everything, you are predicting nothing at all.

 

[Zosimus]

(duplicate post deleted).

 

[mark kennedy]

There seems to be confusion in other threads as to what a mutation is and how it relates to the process of biological evolution.

First, this is the definition that biologists use:

"In biology, a mutation is a permanent change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements. Mutations result from damage to DNA which is not repaired or to RNA genomes (typically caused by radiation or chemical mutagens), errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements.[1][2][3] Mutations may or may not produce discernible changes in the observable characteristics (phenotype) of an organism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

The first question I would like to ask the audience is this:

Humans and chimps look different. They have slightly different body shapes, slightly different physiology, etc. How do you explain these differences?

1. The physical differences (i.e. phenotypes) are due to differences in the DNA sequence of their genomes.

2. Other (include an explanation).

The questions I would ask of that are legion. First of all, what about the shift of traits due to dominant and recessive traits? Have you considered Epigentics? With regards to the differences between chimpanzees and humans have you considered the three fold difference in size and it's molecular basis?

I have no clue what you think the apparent source material is suppose to be contributing to the discussion. What is more the question is a rambling generalization.

You have had moments when you had all the indications of being lucid and substantive. Why don't you start with a basic concept. What is the molecular basis for the differences between the chimpanzee and human brain? Then do a quick google search on the effects of mutations on the human brain.

It's just so sad to see this forum going to seed. It was so much fun back in the day.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[USincognito]

With regards to the differences between chimpanzees and humans have you considered the three fold difference in size and it's molecular basis?

Oh look! Mark's still singing the same tired song after all these years.

Perhaps he'll finally learn something new:

MYH16 shrank our jaw muscles allowing our brains to grow larger.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6981/abs/nature02358.html

SRGAP2C causes our brains to have more connections.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...hy-the-genome-project-missed-it/#.VdkJy5erE0V

ARHGAP11B increases development of the neocortex and generates folds.
http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/02/xeroxed-gene-may-have-paved-way-large-human-brain

There is no mystery about how our brains developed relative to our chimpanzee cousins Mark. We've been telling you that all along.

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh look! Mark's still singing the same tired song after all these years.

Oh look, USincognito has resorted to his usual fallacious rhetoric.

Perhaps he'll finally learn something new:

MYH16 shrank our jaw muscles allowing our brains to grow larger.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6981/abs/nature02358.html

What distinguishes from the apes are not our jaws but our brains.

SRGAP2C causes our brains to have more connections.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...hy-the-genome-project-missed-it/#.VdkJy5erE0V

A link to an obscure article...typical...

ARHGAP11B increases development of the neocortex and generates folds.
http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/02/xeroxed-gene-may-have-paved-way-large-human-brain

Not a quote or a comment just a random link that really only said this at the heart of the emphasis:

“That it was a human-specific gene duplication made it very exciting,” Huttner says.

No it's not, it's just human specific, an effect that presumes a cause.

There is no mystery about how our brains developed relative to our chimpanzee cousins Mark. We've been telling you that all along.

The human brain is three times the size of a chimpanzees and the human brain is about twice as dense. The HAR1f exists in a gene dessert the is one of the most distinctively human regions as compared to our chimpanzee cousins and houses a gene that had not suffered more then two changes since the cambrian explosion, until humans separated from the human/chimpanzee ancestor.

No, of course it's not a mystery, it's an a priori fact with no basis in empirical evidence.

A sad state of affairs. No traffic coming through this forum because it's a dead issue not and yet your still here. After years of debate all your good for is random links and circular arguments. Thanks, guys like you have been one of the most convincing arguments available indicating Darwinism has no real answers.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[crjmurray]

Oh look, USincognito has resorted to his usual fallacious rhetoric.



What distinguishes from the apes are not our jaws but our brains.



A link to an obscure article...typical...



Not a quote or a comment just a random link that really only said this at the heart of the emphasis:

“That it was a human-specific gene duplication made it very exciting,” Huttner says.

No it's not, it's just human specific, an effect that presumes a cause.



The human brain is three times the size of a chimpanzees and the human brain is about twice as dense. The HAR1f exists in a gene dessert the is one of the most distinctively human regions as compared to our chimpanzee cousins and houses a gene that had not suffered more then two changes since the cambrian explosion, until humans separated from the human/chimpanzee ancestor.

No, of course it's not a mystery, it's an a priori fact with no basis in empirical evidence.

A sad state of affairs. No traffic coming through this forum because it's a dead issue not and yet your still here. After years of debate all your good for is random links and circular arguments. Thanks, guys like you have been one of the most convincing arguments available indicating Darwinism has no real answers.

Have a nice day
Mark

Glad to see you're sticking to your guns Mark. Refuse to learn! Refuse to read! Fight the power man.

 

[USincognito]

Oh look, USincognito has resorted to his usual fallacious rhetoric.

Good old reliable Mark, thinking words and phrases mean things they don't actually mean. You claim have an issue with "fallacious rhetoric". Let's look at my quote:
>> Oh look! Mark's still singing the same tired song after all these years. <<

Alright, for my "rhetoric" to be "fallacious" I would have to be incorrect. Let's play back the tape and see if you actually have been singing the same tired song after all these years.
This post is from October 2005 - nearly 10 years ago.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-brain-evolution.2202097/page-4#post-19213046

the genetic basis for the three fold expansion of the brian is unknown​

This is from June 2005 - over 10 years ago.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...e-boards-part-ii.1712488/page-4#post-16058503

The size of human brain tripled {snip}yet its genetic basis remains unknown.​

I think these two examples alone suffice to show that you are indeed still singing the same tired song after all these years.

What distinguishes from the apes are not our jaws but our brains.

As usual your tree/forest discernment remains hobbled by myopia. The point, that you clearly missed, is that the tripling in size that has been a bee in your bonnet for 10+ plus years is explained by the MHY16 gene no longer growing large jaws muscles. Since you probably don't know what this means I'll explain. Jaw muscles are anchored to the skull. The larger the muscles, the more of the skull on which they anchor. In the case of some Hominids, they develop a saggital crest on which to anchor the muscles. With smaller jaw muscles, our skulls no longer were constrained relative to the overall size of the skull and could grow much larger - in fact 3 times larger.

A link to an obscure article...typical...
--------------------
Not a quote or a comment just a random link that really only said this at the heart of the emphasis:

“That it was a human-specific gene duplication made it very exciting,” Huttner says.

No it's not, it's just human specific, an effect that presumes a cause.

Hi Mark! I see you waving your hands. Now that we've exchanged pleasantries. any chance you could address any of the content of the links I provided? I have several more links I can post if you would like.

cont. -

 

[USincognito]

The human brain is three times the size of a chimpanzees and the human brain is about twice as dense.

Yes Mark, we know. You've been singing that same tired song - as I have shown - for over 10 years now. MYH16 explains why our brains could grow larger. SRGAP2C and ARHGAP11B explain why they grew denser and more complex. Your argument from incredulity has been addressed to satisfaction never dreamed of in 2005.

The HAR1f exists in a gene dessert the is one of the most distinctively human regions as compared to our chimpanzee cousins and houses a gene that had not suffered more then two changes since the cambrian explosion, until humans separated from the human/chimpanzee ancestor.

And now we move on to another tired song sung for years.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...apidly-in-humans.3273671/page-3#post-26125228

I said 60 million years when it was 310 million years of evolution. That is getting back pretty close to the Cambrian explosion.​

I realize for a YEC hundreds of millions of years is mind boggling, but 210 million years is not "close to the Cambrian explosion" and 310 million years isn't "since the Cambrian explosion" as you're now claiming. 310 million years ago is actually in the late Carboniferous.

Speaking of HAR1f, did you ever contact the authors of the paper and explain to them that you'd found the silver bullet that killed hominid evolution? I've been suggesting you do so since 2006.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/design-and-the-brain.6441264/page-2#post-40844111

You've had a year and a half to contact the authors of the HAR1 paper and tell them you've found the magic bullet to kill hominid evolution. If your position is so tenable, why haven't you done so?[/quote]

No, of course it's not a mystery, it's an a priori fact with no basis in empirical evidence.

And the hits just keep on playing. Your tired, vacuous rhetoric (a priori fact with no basis in empirical evidence) does not make the copious amounts of evidence you have been provided go away. It just makes you look obstinate.

A sad state of affairs. No traffic coming through this forum because it's a dead issue not and yet your still here. After years of debate all your good for is random links and circular arguments. Thanks, guys like you have been one of the most convincing arguments available indicating Darwinism has no real answers.

Oh man, a severe case of Dunning-Kruger and no sense of irony must be a hard way to go through life.​

 

[DogmaHunter]

Phenotype, genotype.....meaningless in the question concerning how humanity was created.

Loudmouth didn't ask you that question.
Do you read the posts you reply to?

It certainly sounds like you don't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You misrepresent my position. I have no problem with discussing the evidence.

By way of example, let's take this evidence. John spent $100 on fruit. Apples cost $2 each. Oranges cost $3 each. Bananas cost $5 each. What can we conclude about the amount of money spent by John?

Answer: Nothing! We can, of course, theorize that we bought 50 apples or 20 bananas. We could equally theorize that he bought 35 apples and 10 oranges. It's equally possible that he didn't buy any of the three fruit and spent all the money on mangoes.

The information is not sufficient to determine that one and only one theory is correct. Now I realize that you are dogmatically determined to insist your pet theory regardless all these problems. I get it. So does everyone else -- you have an ax to grind. Just don't expect us to go along with it.

How about when he leaves the store holding a bag with 35 apples and 10 oranges, while holding a receipt dated to 2 minutes before that where it mentions that 35 apples and 10 oranges were bought?

Can you now theorize that he spend 100 bucks buying apples and oranges?
Or can we still claim with the same degree of "certainty" that he bought banana's instead?

You'ld have to be banana's to argue with that.

Who am I kidding.... trying to reason with Zosimus. For the lulz.

 

[Larniavc]

You are the one making the positive claim that science is valid and leads to valuable discoveries. According to your own set of standards, shouldn't the burden be on you to demonstrate this?

This poster continues to demand first principles of epistemology in a science sub forum (where such things are assumed). This is surely not good debate etiquette.

 

[Loudmouth]

The questions I would ask of that are legion. First of all, what about the shift of traits due to dominant and recessive traits? Have you considered Epigentics?

What makes a trait dominant or recessive? The answer is the DNA sequence of each allele. Guess what changes DNA sequences? Mutations. We have observed the spontaneous creation of alleles from mutations in that neither parent has the disease allele. These are dominant diseases where you only need one copy of the disease allele (e.g. achondroplasia, hemophilia). These are better known because when people have these diseases they go to the doctor, and we know exactly which genes they correlate with. Beneficial mutations are much harder to track because people don't go to the doctor when they are feeling better than other people, and we can't correlate specific improvements with specific genes.

With regards to the differences between chimpanzees and humans have you considered the three fold difference in size and it's molecular basis?

Have you?

Do you think it is due to a difference in DNA sequences between the genomes?

I have no clue what you think the apparent source material is suppose to be contributing to the discussion. What is more the question is a rambling generalization.

There are those in this forum who keep bringing up epigenetics and outright rejecting the "mutation theory of evolution".

Why don't you start with a basic concept. What is the molecular basis for the differences between the chimpanzee and human brain?

The molecular basis is the difference in DNA sequence between the two genomes.

Then do a quick google search on the effects of mutations on the human brain.

We can already see the effects of the mutations that separate humans and chimps. All we need to do is compare the two species.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh look, USincognito has resorted to his usual fallacious rhetoric.



What distinguishes from the apes are not our jaws but our brains.



A link to an obscure article...typical...



Not a quote or a comment just a random link that really only said this at the heart of the emphasis:

“That it was a human-specific gene duplication made it very exciting,” Huttner says.

No it's not, it's just human specific, an effect that presumes a cause.



The human brain is three times the size of a chimpanzees and the human brain is about twice as dense. The HAR1f exists in a gene dessert the is one of the most distinctively human regions as compared to our chimpanzee cousins and houses a gene that had not suffered more then two changes since the cambrian explosion, until humans separated from the human/chimpanzee ancestor.

No, of course it's not a mystery, it's an a priori fact with no basis in empirical evidence.

A sad state of affairs. No traffic coming through this forum because it's a dead issue not and yet your still here. After years of debate all your good for is random links and circular arguments. Thanks, guys like you have been one of the most convincing arguments available indicating Darwinism has no real answers.

Have a nice day
Mark

Do you have any doubt that the physical differences between humans and chimps is due to the DNA differences between our genomes?

 

[Zosimus]

How about when he leaves the store holding a bag with 35 apples and 10 oranges, while holding a receipt dated to 2 minutes before that where it mentions that 35 apples and 10 oranges were bought?

Can you now theorize that he spend 100 bucks buying apples and oranges?
Or can we still claim with the same degree of "certainty" that he bought banana's instead?

You'ld have to be banana's to argue with that.

Who am I kidding.... trying to reason with Zosimus. For the lulz.

All right, so it is theoretically possible to have a determined argument. For example, this can happen in math class.

But does this happen in the real world? If so, you should be able to come up with hundreds of theories that are so solid that alternate hypothesis do not even exist. Can you?

Additionally, your argument is littered with misrepresentations of my position, spelling and grammar mistakes, and personal insults. Please try to stick to the topic.

 

[Zosimus]

This poster continues to demand first principles of epistemology in a science sub forum (where such things are assumed). This is surely not good debate etiquette.

First of all, your argument isn't even clear. What do you mean by "demand first principles of epistemology." You can demand that someone do something. However, how can you demand first principles? That makes no sense.

I think what you mean to say is that I have questioned the first principles of epistemology. Apparently your argument is that since this is a science forum that such things should be assumed. In other words, you're saying that your philosophy of science should take precedence over that of Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, and Paul Feyerabend, all of whom questioned what you wrongly call the "first principles of epistemology" and found them wanting.

Second, the first principles of epistemology is that knowledge is justified true belief. The question, therefore, is what do we mean by "justified?" When is someone justified in believing something? You seem to subscribe to evidentialism. In other words, you seem to think that you are justified in believing something when there is evidence for it. However, you have never said what evidence you have for evidentialism. Apparently you think you are entitled to use special pleading to exclude evidentialism from having to produce evidence.

Finally, remember that this is a Christian forum. As such, one might easily argue that it is a breach of etiquette to question the veracity of the Holy Bible. Nevertheless, this doesn't stop atheists from doing so. I suppose that once again we are talking about special pleading. It's all right for atheists to question or even ridicule Christian beliefs, but it's not okay for me to question atheist dogma.

 

[Larniavc]

In other words, you seem to think that you are justified in believing something when there is evidence for it. However, you have never said what evidence you have for evidentialism.

The irony! It burns!

 

[Not_By_Chance]

You don't have to assume anything. There is this thing called evidence . . . oh wait, I forgot. You ignore evidence. Never mind.

I don't want to try to comment on the subject of this thread as a whole, but just to say in response to the above remark, Evidence is defined as, "the facts, signs or objects that make you believe that sth is true" (Oxford English dictionary - my emphasis added). So I would conclude that interpretation is required when looking at evidence, which is no doubt why there are many ideas about the correct answers to life's big questions. In other words, nobody knows for sure, even experts in their own particular fields. In addition, no-one has the complete picture and therefore has to rely on others providing the other pieces to the puzzle. Now, as I have said before, I am not a scientist, so I don't know whether the following is true or not, but I have heard it said and it does seem feasible that some scientists could feel intimidated if the results of their research went against the views of the majority (currently evolution of course, but the same would apply if say, supernatural creation was the popular view and a minority of scientists believed in evolution). I have further heard it said that scientists have been threatened or even lost their jobs/research funding for refusing to tow the line. Even many non-scientists feel intimidated if their beliefs are challenged, which probably accounts for why so many people prefer not to discuss these matters.