Re: Propping up the theory of Evolution

On Jul 3, 11:05 pm, rick_so...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
The amount of genomic difference between chimps and humans is about
what one would expect *if* the entire difference were due to fixation
of selectively neutral traits (in the 97% of our genomes that is
relatively sequence-irrelevant).  Actually, the amount of difference
is a little less than that expectation.  That is because of
selection.  Most selection is selection *against* change.  The number
of sites that differ between chimp and human that can be clearly
identified as having a selective pressure *for* change can be numbered
to be in the range of 50 or so sites (none a protein coding region).

What is 97% of 2 billion if there are 2 billion bits of information in
a strand of DNA?

The haploid human genome is about 3 billion nucleotides long, not 2
billion. Meaning that us diploids have twice that number. And the
DNA is not in a single strand, but divided into 23 chromosomes in the
haploid genome (that's 23 pairs, or 46, in the diploid).

Thats 40 million bits of information.

97% of 2 billion is not 40 million by any math I am aware of. That
97% is a rough estimate of the amount of DNA that has no effective
sequence constraint because it does not code for proteins (or some
regulatory sequences). So 3% would be the measure of the 'bits' that
have some constraint. 3% of *3* billion is about 90 million
nucleotides. Since this is the part under some sequence constraint
only because it encodes protein, even this part is not under severe
constraint, because much of protein sequence can change without undue
consequence.

We are not like monkeys, and
whoever wrote that 40 million bits of code would tell you that nature
by itself, cannot write a 40 million bit meaningful essay by random
chance, by merely producing random characters, as you would suggest.

The part that is under strong constraint is almost identical in humans
and chimps. Typical human and chimp homologs of proteins differ in
only an average of two amino acids. About 30 percent of all human
proteins are identical in sequence to the corresponding chimp
protein. No one wrote the DNA; it was passed on from parent to child
in both lineages from a nearly identical sequence in the last common
ancestor. The relative *lack* of difference in coding regions even
compared to the small total difference (almost all selectively
neutral, meaning that it is without functional effect) is due to the
conservative nature of selection.

If you write a computer program that generates random characters, how
long would it take, for that program to randomly generate an essay,
that contained 40 million bits of information, that made sense.

No current organism or species was manufactured that way from their
ancestor, so the question is irrelevant. It is like asking how cars
get better if they reproduced by sex.

That
is proper grammatic sentences, instructions, that had meaning across
various scientific disciplines, and not just any sentences, but
sentences which result in the differences between an ape and man?

As I am trying to explain, there is simply not a hell of a lot of
total difference in the DNA *because* both current species got their
DNA from a common ancestor, not from some random-generation machine.
In fact, the DNAs are so close, it would be impossible for them to be
generated completely randomly. The amount of difference *is*,
however, what you would expect from neutral drift with a *few* sites
under selective constraint and even *fewer* sites undergoing selective
change. Essentially, unless you look hard at specific sequences, the
number of sites that underwent *selective* *change* (rather than
random drift or *selective retention*) is so small it appears as
background noise.

Of all the possible sentences you could randomly generate.

But when you say well its 97% the same, you are merely trying to
disguise the reality of the situation, which is what always happens
when people are not willing to admit the truth.
If we say for instance that it is just 4 MB of text, well have a look
on your harddrive for a text file that is 4 MB, and imagine what a 4MB
text file of instructions might look like.
Thats about 70,000 lines of computer code. 70,000 meaningful sentences
that are not just talk about the weather, but some really high tech
sh*t. About neural network brain functionality and pattern recognition
and language skills and comprehension abilities, hightened motor
control and all the rest.
You're dreaming if you think that happened without intelligent design.

Take a sequence which is about 1000 letters long. 970 of those
letters can be changed to *any* other letter without changing the
meaning of the entire sequence one bit. Even changes in the 30
remaining letters have a good probability of not changing the meaning
one bit. Now, if you saw two organisms that differed by only about 20
letters, with most of them being in the part that can support any
letter without affecting function you would not claim that the two
organisms were created *independently* by some random sequence
generator. No evolutionist would claim that. They attribute that
extreme similarity to common descent and the differences due to
changes from that common ancestor. That is a natural consequence of
divergence and descent with modification.

However, a magical designer is not under the same constraint as nature
is. He/she/it/they could just as easily made humans that differed in
592 sites (since most of the changes would be neutral and don't affect
function). Or 837. Or 970+. Or almost no differences at all, but
only the *extremely* small number of sequence differences that *do*
strongly affect function and cause the observed phenotypic
differences. But nooooooooo! The designer made almost exactly the
number of changes one would expect by largely neutral drift over the
time frame that the two modern species have evolved separately since
divergence from the common ancestor. If there is a designer, he/she/
it/they is/are lying or playing a big practical joke on us. And the
*** not only did that for humans and chimps, but *consistently* in
essentially all of life.

If you don't want a deceitful god, you need to recognize that
evolution is the mechanism that he/she/it/they used.


.