Pete's Quite Thread post

[jnhofzinser]

humans do not speciate

Would you like to support that assertion?

Would you like to provide a credible rebuttal?

 

[mikeynov]

Would you like to provide a credible rebuttal?

It would help to define "human."

I'm serious, too, because "human" is used in the literature to refer anything from H. sapiens sapiens up to the entire Homo genus.

If it's the latter, then it'd be pretty easy to demonstrate an implication of speciation via the fossil record (ie some comparative analysis of H. erectus and its likely daughter branch, H. floresiensis).

If you mean "watch some subset of modern humans form a new, biologically distinct species," then no, we have no observed examples of that. Pretty unlikely given the current gene flow situation, don't you think?

 

[mark kennedy]

Please elaborate, what exactly do you mean by this? Natural selection does exist now, but "not on the level it is presumed to have" been? What level has been presumed, Mark?

The issue is a single common ancestor, its absured.

Actually for the Bible to be correct it has to work as a higher "level" than is presumed by science. All those kinds needed to evolve pretty sharpish after the flood, don't you know?

Yes, of course I know, thus my interest in evolutionary biology.

I've never heard a creationist argue that natural selection is an argument against special creation, not just because it is required for YECism to work at all, but because it is common sense and fact.

Read the introduction to Darwin's Orign of Species.

Why do you believe it is an argument against special creation, when no other creationists do?

Creationism is one long argument againt Darwinism, make no mistake, it's in the literature if you read it.

So because we know something happens today we shouldn't apply it to the past, when there is no reason not to? Are you equally critical of archeology and forensics?

Of course we are critical of forensics and archeology, we are examining the evidence for history, we have to be critical.

But that's exactly what we did, and we've all shown you the literature to prove it. In fact you've even used the literature yourself, except you throw everything you don't agree with out the window.

You didn't understand the literature obviously or you would have quoted it.

You forgot to add the minority of Christians will address them.

Yea, the minority that did the most to preserve and mold western civilization.

What you believe is not empircal fact. Something you need desperately to learn. YECism is a belief, because it flys in the face of all available evidence. Nobody's arguing your right to that belief, but claiming it as proven fact is out of bounds.

As long as they argue against the most basic premise of Christian theism 'In the begining God', I'll keep coming back, and I am not alone.

You're also making presumptions about unobservable history, and the Bible. The difference is that yours are without any evidence and you claim them as fact. Science never claims to have all the answers on common descent, or even anything. There is no reason to assume that evolution didn't happen in the past as it happens today. All the evidence strongly points to a common ancestor. So much so that it is scientific fact. You may not like this, and may feel that science is stepping on the toes of your beliefs, but all I can say is "tough". Do you also believe that we can't apply the fact that the earth is round today to the passages in the Bible that say it's flat? What about the passages that say God moved the sun to change the sun dials, and thus that the sun orbits the earth?

I presume nothing except the agency of God in creation. The Bible as history has no equal, the Scriptures have stood the test of every psuedo-scientific argument against it. You have nothing but anecdotal evidence and pedantic satire to support your worldview and btw, the Bible does not teach that the world is flat, that is absurd.

Do you think that origins and science are the area of expertise of theology? Because that's what you're arguing. The natural history of this world is a matter for science, not theology. Lets not forget that it was originally left in the hands of theology, and it failed miserably.

There would be no such thing as modern science had it not been for the Protestant Reformation. Your ignorance of history is rivaled only by your substitution of satire for science.

Speciation is not a requisite of natural selection, but a result of it over a long period of time. You seem to have things backwards. Those finches and snakes changed as a result of positive selection, something you claim doesn't exist.

That is why I ignore you so often, you waste my time with tangents. Natural selection is better termed natural preservation and it's in the quote you read out of context. Go back and read it again, this time read it in the context of the overall arguement and quit wasting my time.

Would you like to support that assertion?

I have and I do, when I encounter someone with something of substance to argue with.

 

[mikeynov]

Wow. Here's a meta-review of 993 examples of something you claim doesn't even exist.

I'm going to quote myself on the above, quantitative demonstration of a type of natural selection Mark again implies doesn't exist (positive selection).
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/16/9157

 

[mark kennedy]

Would you like to provide a credible rebuttal?

There is no such thing as two seperate species of humans, if they know anything about science they know this to be a fact. Where are all of these mechanisms in evolutionary biology because the human species has defied them all.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm going to quote myself on the above, quantitative demonstration of a type of natural selection Mark again implies doesn't exist (positive selection).
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/16/9157

Give me the particulars and we can talk, don't waste my time with dead end links.

 

[mikeynov]

Give me the particulars and we can talk, don't waste my time with dead end links.

How is it a dead end link? I'm just providing you a resource on the topic. Good gravy.

 

[mikeynov]

There is no such thing as two seperate species of humans, if they know anything about science they know this to be a fact. Where are all of these mechanisms in evolutionary biology because the human species has defied them all.

Creationists, pretending to be better experts in biology than actual biologists 150 years and counting!

What has the human species ever defied? You've been given demonstrations of everything you've asked for and continue to ignore everything you don't like. For example, see glaudy's last post (which I note you're ignoring). You still have yet to correct her math - inquiring minds want to know why, Mark :-x

 

[mikeynov]

Total sidenote to Mark Kennedy:

You're particularly interested in the genetics end of everything, so just out of curiosity, do you participate at other locations in these debates? I've noticed that of all the locales I've been to, pandasthumb probably has the most scholarly discussions in terms of the nitty gritty genetics. I'd recommend visiting that website (which is basically a blog, but issues of genetics pop up quite often, and it'd be pretty easy to sponsor a debate) if you haven't already.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Pete, the 68,000 indels and the 1.44 single point base substitutions are fixed in the entire population. The question is how did they get in there without killing off the entire species.

Yes. I'm just saying that not every single mutation that ever occured becomes fixed.

What numbers, the beneficial mutations of bacteria as assumed to be involved in human evolution. Its absurd.

Fine, maybe it's absurd. I totally agree, it may not be a fair comparison at all. BUT, remember why I wrote that post in the first place. People were saying that beneficial mutations don't occur frequently enough. So I took the only statistical data I could find on beneficial mutations and applied it.

If you disagree with the methodology I used (and I will be the first to admit, it's probably not a good comparison), then you have no other data to work from. At best, it's a gap in knowledge. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your anecdotal evidence is pure supposition and equivacating those changes with the ones that code for proteins in the human brain is equally absurd.

I am merely trying to point out that it's possible to mutate protein-coding DNA with beneficial effects (however slight). Do you agree with that? Yes or no?

You are resorting to clutch phrases, there is nothing tangable in this statement. For whatever reason, you are ignoring the substantive difficulties for evolution by the effects of mutations as directly observed and demonstrated in modern genetics. I didn't move the goal posts, nature did. When they got a closer look at the actual nucleotide sequences they realized the differences are far greater then anyone would have guessed. It came as no supprise to creationists, we have known this all along.

Then fine. As I've said, come up with your own model. Plug your numbers in and show me the results. Stop merely saying it's a problem and actually prove it's a problem.

Quote the source material that substantiates this and we can talk. Otherwise I would have to conclude that this is nothing but hyperbole.

I'd originally done so, but I don't remember which paper it was from (since there's a lot of literature on the subject). Here's another paper, which actually describes the first case of a homozygous CCR5d32 AIDS patient. They make reference to the fact that previously it was unknown:


Population studies demonstrate that the frequency of this defect is relatively common in the Caucasian population where 1% are homozygous for the d32 deletion and 20% are heterozygous. This defect has not been reported in other ethnic populations. Multiple studies of HIV infected individuals have failed to demonstrate a single d32 homozygote being infected. In all over 3,000 Caucasian HIV infected individuals have been genotyped. If the d32 deletion had no influence on susceptibility to infection then 30 (=1%) would have been expected to be d32 homozygotes. Thus the absence of d32 homozygotes from the HIV infected population is strong statistical evidence that this defect carries some protection against HIV infection. This association is strengthened by the over-representation of d32 homozygotes in the group of homosexual men who have been historically multiply exposed to HIV yet have remained uninfected. Furthermore, although no abnormal phenotype has been characterised for heterozygotes some studies have suggested that, while conferring no real protection from infection with HIV, heterozygosity may lead to slower progression of HIV disease.

RESISTANCE TO HIV INFECTION - THE EXCEPTION THAT PROVES THE RULE?

And, AFIAK, while the CCR5d32 gene protects against HIV-1, it does not protect against HIV-2.

 

[mark kennedy]

How is it a dead end link? I'm just providing you a resource on the topic. Good gravy.

If you have a demostrated mechanism for the evolution of humans for apes the tell us about it, otherwise I am just about out of time, thanks anyway.

 

[mark kennedy]

Total sidenote to Mark Kennedy:

You're particularly interested in the genetics end of everything, so just out of curiosity, do you participate at other locations in these debates? I've noticed that of all the locales I've been to, pandasthumb probably has the most scholarly discussions in terms of the nitty gritty genetics. I'd recommend visiting that website (which is basically a blog, but issues of genetics pop up quite often, and it'd be pretty easy to sponsor a debate) if you haven't already.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

 

[mikeynov]

If you have a demostrated mechanism for the evolution of humans for apes the tell us about it, otherwise I am just about out of time, thanks anyway.

Mark, please give us a definition of "apes" by which we could logically include all known groups of apes.

I have a hypothesis - you won't be able to provide one without inadvertently including humans.

 

[jnhofzinser]

Mark, please give us a definition of "apes" by which we could logically include all known groups of apes.

Mikey, you're evading the request:

If you have a demostrated mechanism for the evolution of humans [from] apes the tell us about it

If "apes" included humans, there wouldn't be an issue, would there? So go with the traditional meaning of "apes" (including, as you wish, any ancestral creature), and tell us about the demonstrated mechanism for the evolution of humans from them

 

[mikeynov]

Mikey, you're evading the request:
[/i]If "apes" included humans, there wouldn't be an issue, would there? So go with the traditional meaning of "apes" (including, as you wish, any ancestral creature), and tell us about the demonstrated mechanism for the evolution of humans from them

I was pointing out to Mark that we're still apes now, which is a point he glosses over a lot.

I could easily give evidence THAT we're related to other apes. But that wasn't the request. And I didn't reply at all to Mark, because seriously, how many times can we have the same conversation with Mark on this board? If he denies positive selection even exists, then I'm not going to give him anything he accepts, and I don't need to hear another lecture on why scientists worship Artemis or whatever.

What would be a "demonstrated mechanism" in your eyes? I'm guessing you're aware of research looking at, say, the sorts of selection responsible (from a retrospective view) for differences in divergence between people and chimps from their common ancestor ~5-10 mya.

But are you asking me to "reproduce several million years of human evolution in a lab?" Not honestly sure what you're looking for.

 

[mikeynov]

P.S. When did natural selection + mutation become an inadequate mechanism to explain the rise of humanity, when we've seen this process culminate in speciation? What are the magic barriers that Mark (and perhaps you) are hinting at that stops this process from continuing to cause greater degrees of divergence over deep time?

 

[jnhofzinser]

I could easily give evidence THAT we're related to other apes.

As as you surmise that isn't the issue.

But are you asking me to "reproduce several million years of human evolution in a lab?"

How about reproducing them in your head? And then, if the mechanism appears sufficient to you, then reproducing them here on this thread. If you opt for hand-waving or blind faith, don't worry: you'll be called on it.

On the other hand, if you are honest enough to recognize that there are all kinds of difficulties (for example, huge genomic insertions that don't appear to "come from" anywhere), then please be kind enough to say so, and I can guarantee that I'll let you off the hook, and Mark just might, too.

 

[jnhofzinser]

When did natural selection + mutation become an inadequate mechanism to explain the rise of humanity?

Perhaps the more appropriate question is "when did natural selection + mutation become an adequate mechanism?" The extrapolation is considerable, and unwarranted by the evidence. Try to make the case for that extrapolation without recourse to the tried-and-true, but generally inadequate "because we have no better scientific option".

 

[mikeynov]

As as you surmise that isn't the issue.

How about reproducing them in your head? And then, if the mechanism appears sufficient to you, then reproducing them here on this thread. If you opt for hand-waving or blind faith, don't worry: you'll be called on it.

I don't know the specific changes that occurred, genetically speaking, from a pre-human stock to human stock, because that pre-human stock isn't around anymore to do any sort of genomic comparisons. But I never really pretended to be able to elucidate a step-wise, generational sequence of particular selective pressures acting upon particular beneficial mutations in order to be able to do so.

So no, I definitely can't describe how it happened, mechanistically speaking.

But the opposite point was asserted and never backed up - that there are fixed limits beyond which change is impossible. Similarly, Mark never acknowledged peer reviewed examples of positive selection - so why are any of us obliged to answer any questions coming from Mark when he won't return the courtesy? This is pertinent because Mark asked this question.

On the other hand, if you are honest enough to recognize that there are all kinds of difficulties (for example, huge genomic insertions that don't appear to "come from" anywhere), then please be kind enough to say so, and I can guarantee that I'll let you off the hook, and Mark just might, too.

Well, now you're making positive claims (I never once made any regarding the particulars of the evolution from pre-human to human), so you're going to have to back them up.

(for example, huge genomic insertions that don't appear to "come from" anywhere)

For example, what are you referring to here?

 

[mikeynov]

Perhaps the more appropriate question is "when did natural selection + mutation become an adequate mechanism?" The extrapolation is considerable, and unwarranted by the evidence. Try to make the case for that extrapolation without recourse to the tried-and-true "because we have no better scientific option".

This is quite the double standard.

You are asserting that it is "unwarranted by the evidence." Yet you're not required to back up your statements?