When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

[Loudmouth]

*IF* monkeys evolved into chimps *then* mutations had nothing to do with it.

If mutations were the cause, then there only had to be less than 20 million beneficial mutations in the human genome, not an infinite number of them as you claim.

As Collins says God has a plan and there is nothing unpredictable about His plan.

What evidence does he present to back that assertion?

There are no beneficial mutations to count because they do not exist.

The DNA differences between humans and chimps are not beneficial to humans? Really?

You really need to prove this assertion, because it looks ridiculous from the outside.

A lot of what makes up the difference has to do with regulation and mutation has nothing to do with that.

The differences in gene regulation ARE DUE TO DNA DIFFERENCES. You don't get differences in gene regulation with the same DNA sequence.

You are smart enough to figure this out, so I can only assume that for whatever your reason you do not want to know the truth. We already did the "infinite monkey theorem" in another thread so there is no reason to kick that dead horse again.

Apparently, you are not smart enough to figure out that differences in gene regulation are due to mutations in gene regulators and the promoter regions they bind to.

 

[Loudmouth]

The reason mutations, mistakes and errors disappear is because of the mathematical precision of DNA is able to self correct and maintain it's integrity.

Then how do you explain the fact that every human is born with between 35 and 50 mutations? How do explain the fact that they pass on those mutations to their offspring, who themselves have a brand new batch of 35 to 50 mutations?

I am not going to keep repeating this over and over again. There are NONE,

I am going to repeat this over and over and over until you respond to it.

Those beneficial mutations are found among the 40 million mutations that separate chimps and humans

 

[joshua 1 9]

If mutations were the cause, then there only had to be less than 20 million beneficial mutations in the human genome, not an infinite number of them as you claim.

It would take 20 million selectable mutations to evolve from chimp to human? Then how many Non-selectable mutants mutations would be produced along with the viable mutations? If you have 20 million beneficial mutation then it should not be a problem for you to demonstrate that they exist.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Those beneficial mutations are found among the 40 million mutations that separate chimps and humans

Now you have gone from 20 to 40 million and yet you can not ever produce one.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now you have gone from 20 to 40 million and yet you can not ever produce one.

20 million in the human lineage, 40 million total in both lineages. To get the difference between chimps and humans you need the mutations that occurred in both lineages. To get the changes in the human lineage, you divide by half since about of those mutations occurred in the human lineage.

 

[Loudmouth]

It would take 20 million selectable mutations to evolve from chimp to human?

No. It would take 20 million to evolve the total human genome from the common ancestor shared with chimps. Only a small number of those mutations need to be beneficial. It would take 20 million in the chimp lineage to get them from that common ancestor to the modern species.

Then how many Non-selectable mutants mutations would be produced along with the viable mutations? If you have 20 million beneficial mutation then it should not be a problem for you to demonstrate that they exist.

They do exist. They are among the mutations that separate us from chimps. The reason why we physically differ from chimps is due to those mutations. Those physical differences are beneficial in humans. Do the math.

 

[pgp_protector]

Diamonds are rare. Does that mean diamonds don't exist?

Also, talkorigins says that most mutations are neutral.

"Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
"
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Don't ask Adam about how rare Diamonds are
"Why Engagement Rings Are a Scam - Adam Ruins Everything"
Link not allowed due to language.

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't ask Adam about how rare Diamonds are
"Why Engagement Rings Are a Scam - Adam Ruins Everything"
Link not allowed due to language.

I don't think there is a cartel controlling the release of beneficial mutations into the human population.

 

[pgp_protector]

I don't think there is a cartel controlling the release of beneficial mutations into the human population.

Just a joke about the rarity of diamonds
Showed the wife that vid & she was just like the woman on it, Don't care, still want one

 

[46AND2]

You are smart enough to figure this out, so I can only assume that for whatever your reason you do not want to know the truth. We already did the "infinite monkey theorem" in another thread so there is no reason to kick that dead horse again.

Yes, and your infinite monkey theorem was completely destroyed, and shown not to be an adequate representation of how evolution works. So...not sure what it has to do with this current infinite mutation idea of yours.

 

[rjs330]

Humans and chimps are not different creatures?



It is only a 2% change for the 3 billion base human genome.



Point mutations, indels, and recombination events.



Am I missing something here? Why do you think humans and chimps look different? Isn't it because our genomes are different? Isn't it because of those 40 million differences between our genomes?



Chimps are humans?



Chimps aren't essentially something different?



The physical and genetic differences between humans and chimps isn't observable? REALLY?????

I think I need to put on a pair of galoshes. It's getting a little deep in here.



That isn't assumed at all. If we went back 5 million years and started with the same common ancestor, there is no expectation that chimps and humans would be the expected outcome. Things could go very differently due to the stochastic nature of evolution.



Do the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps have no effect? Perhaps you should think about that for a second.



A point mutation is a change in the base a specific position. An A to a G or a T to a C, for example. AGGTTTCCC to AGTTTCCC

An indel is the insertion or deletion of a base or bases. AGGTTGTTTA to AGG--GTTTA for example.

A recombination event is where one strand of DNA excises out of the genome and inserts elsewhere, or single stranded DNA folds over and binds to other parts of the genome. This often occurs through homologous recombination where complementary bases stick to each other.



We are primates, and all primates are evolving into new variations of primates.



You can read the chimp genome paper here:

"Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html



That simply isn't true. You haven't been able to point to a single assumption thus far.

What!? You're whole post is an assumption. Its the assumption that we came from chimps. And every single thing you pointed out in your post talks about how we are different creatures than chimps.

We are different than chimps but the assumption is we evolved from chimps. And the paper you cited is one big assumption. Note the wording. They have A complete catalog of genetic differences that have accumulated since the humans and chimps diverged. They catalog the differences and then make a statement of fact of the divergence. Assuming we came from chimps. Not one mention that the differences could actually be,we are different and always have been. No, it is assumed we came from chimps.

Once again you have proven that evolution is nothing more,than one big unprovable and unproven assumption.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Loudmouth]

What!? You're whole post is an assumption. Its the assumption that we came from chimps.

I never said that we came from chimps. Perhaps you should reread my post:

"That isn't assumed at all. If we went back 5 million years and started with the same common ancestor, there is no expectation that chimps and humans would be the expected outcome. Things could go very differently due to the stochastic nature of evolution."

I clearly stated that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor.

Also, shared ancestry between humans and chimps is not assumed. It is a conclusion supported by evidence. In fact, I discuss the evidence in this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-new-retrovirus-thread.7942101/

When you have evidence, it isn't an assumption. It's as if you are claiming that we have to assume a suspect is guilty in order to get a DNA match or a fingerprint match.

And every single thing you pointed out in your post talks about how we are different creatures than chimps.

Why are we different? Isn't it because our genomes are different?

We are different than chimps but the assumption is we evolved from chimps.

No such assumption is used. It is very well founded conclusion that genotype leads to phenotype. Humans and chimps are different from each other because our genomes are different. You are trying to claim that changes in the genome can't lead to physical differences. The basic observation of the genetic and physical differences between chimps and humans, and our well evidenced knowledge of how genome leads to morphology, completely disproves your claim.

Whether we evolved from a common ancestor shared with chimps or not, your claim that genetic changes can't lead to physical changes is completely false.

And the paper you cited is one big assumption. Note the wording. They have A complete catalog of genetic differences that have accumulated since the humans and chimps diverged. They catalog the differences and then make a statement of fact of the divergence. Assuming we came from chimps.

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

"Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

Also, shared ancestry was already well established through the use of evidence prior to the chimp genome paper. It isn't an assumption. It is one of the most solid scientific conclusions there are, backed by mountains of evidence.

Not one mention that the differences could actually be,we are different and always have been. No, it is assumed we came from chimps.

The divergence of LTR's among shared ERV's demonstrates that they evolved from a common ancestor. The divergence between these repeat sections found in endogenous retroviruses forms the same phylogeny as the one formed by morphology. This is smoking gun evidence for evolution.

"Third, sequence divergence between the LTRs at the ends of a given provirus provides an important and unique source of phylogenetic information. The LTRs are created during reverse transcription to regenerate cis-acting elements required for integration and transcription. Because of the mechanism of reverse transcription, the two LTRs must be identical at the time of integration, even if they differed in the precursor provirus (Fig. 1A). Over time, they will diverge in sequence because of substitutions, insertions, and deletions acquired during cellular DNA replication."

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

Once again you have proven that evolution is nothing more,than one big unprovable and unproven assumption.

All you have proven is that you don't even know what the definition of assumption is.

Everything I have said is backed by observable and testable evidence. None of it is assumed.

 

[PsychoSarah]

And you know this how? Oh yeah because you were there to observe it right? Its known as a transitional species because evolutionist theory wants it to be not because any one tested or observed it. What you actually had was a very interesting creature that existed at one time and went extinct. There is no proof it came from anything else.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Are you trying to use my statement against evolution? Because my statement was clearly in support of it. Ans we observe evolution constantly, to the point that it is actually impossible for us to even artificially halt the process

 

[PsychoSarah]

What!? You're whole post is an assumption. Its the assumption that we came from chimps. And every single thing you pointed out in your post talks about how we are different creatures than chimps.

That's goes for two reasons.
1. Obviously, if we evolved, then we came from a species other than humans some point down the line.
2. No person well informed about evolution thinks we evolved from chimpanzees. We share an ancestor with chimpanzees, and that ancestor was not in and of itself a chimpanzee. We're essentially evolutionary cousins with chimps.

We are different than chimps but the assumption is we evolved from chimps. And the paper you cited is one big assumption. Note the wording. They have A complete catalog of genetic differences that have accumulated since the humans and chimps diverged. They catalog the differences and then make a statement of fact of the divergence. Assuming we came from chimps. Not one mention that the differences could actually be,we are different and always have been. No, it is assumed we came from chimps.

Scientific papers are not argumentative or designed to try to convince people of one perspective versus another, they just describe observations and the conclusions derived from them. Creationism is not even a hypothesis, so it would make absolutely no sense for it to be mentioned in a scientific paper.

Once again you have proven that evolution is nothing more,than one big unprovable and unproven assumption.

Science doesn't do proof, that's what math does. Yes, everything in science has a chance of being wrong, but that doesn't mean said change is big enough to be a concern, or that your proposed alternative is legitimate in the slightest. I don't care really that you don't support evolution, but your reasoning behind it is extremely flawed, and that does bother me.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Yes, and your infinite monkey theorem was completely destroyed, and shown not to be an adequate representation of how evolution works. So...not sure what it has to do with this current infinite mutation idea of yours.

Exactly and without infinity the random theory fails. So you are helping me make my case.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Exactly and without infinity the random theory fails. So you are helping me make my case.

Since when do we need an infinite number of individuals for beneficial mutations to occur, when all possible beneficial mutations for our ancestral species are hardly a requirement for our species to result after many generations?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The point is you have no evidence of a beneficial mutation. And in order for the theory to work you could not even count how many so called beneficial mutation your theory would take. Pretty much an infinite number and we all know that the math is simply impossible. If you can not see the absurdity in that then there is nothing I can do to help you.

What are you talking about? There is plenty of evidence for beneficial mutations. They have been observed both in the lab and in the field. And we really don't need to show actual beneficial mutations since the evidence for evolution is so incredibly strong and there is no scientific evidence for any other ideas.

And no, we don't need "pretty near an infinite number". We can measure the differences between humans and chimps and it is nowhere near "infinite". In fact we can measure the difference between man and almost any life. Life has had billions of years to evolve. Quite a few mutations can add up in that time.

Meanwhile you have nothing that supports your views except for a book written by scientifically ignorant men. Is it any wonder that they made so many mistakes? I don't think so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly and without infinity the random theory fails. So you are helping me make my case.

But it does not take "an infinite number of monkeys" if one uses selection. The complete works of Shakespeare have been reproduced by a computer simulation with a limited number of simulated number and a selection device.

Yes, if evolution was random we would need an infinite amount of time. Lucky for us that it isn't.

 

[46AND2]

Exactly and without infinity the random theory fails. So you are helping me make my case.

Evolution. is. not. random.

As was explained to you when your infinite monkey argument as it pertains to evolution was destroyed.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Evolution. is. not. random.

Of course natural selection is not random. That is why the theory has survived for 100 years. The question is what does natural selection select. Where does variation come from. The mutation theory is an attempt to answer that question and it totally fails to do that. The fact is that God SAID let there be life. Francis Collins tells us that DNA is the LANGUAGE of God. We know that God does not stutter, and He does not make mistakes. Also we know that God knows the end from the beginning. So as Collins says it may appear that there is a random element to evolution but there is nothing random about evolution at all. Natural selection is simply an organism responding and at times fine tuning itself to changes in the environment. As the world changes the life that is in the world changes along with the changes in the environment. We adjust and we adapt because that is the way God made us. Species evolved in response to changes in each other. So if you do not understand co-evolution then you do not understand evolution at all. It all connects, everything in the Universe connects. That is why you have the butterfly effect.