Re: Possible vs. Likely

Ron O wrote:
On Nov 29, 9:45 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ron O wrote:
On Nov 28, 11:50 am, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Nov 28, 12:11 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

(snip)> Name a unique functional difference between humans and
chimps that
isn't just quantitative but qualitative . . . Then, once you have
done this, show the minimum number of genetic differences needed
to produce this novel functional difference.

(snip)

I'm a little curious here . . .

Humans and chimps are closer to each other, genetically, than many
other species are which creationists consider to be the same "kind"
-- horses and donkeys, for instance, or cheetahs and jaguars.

Why then do you consider it utterly absolutely completely
impossible for humans to have "micro-evolved" their genetic
differencesd with chimps, but NOT utterly absolutely completely
impossible for members of other "kinds" to have "micro-evolved"
their LARGER genetic differences with each other?

If the genetic differences between jaguars and cheetahs can have
evolved, then why do you insist that the SMALLER genetic
differences between chimps and humans, can not have?

Besides, of course, your religious opinion that humans are special
and simply cannot be related through descent to any other animal,
no matter what . . .

================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Editor, Red and Black
Publishershttp://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

It is worse than that for Sean because he seems to have this
evidence thing and backing up your own notions out of whack with
reality. If Sean wants to contend that he has something Sean has to
come up with examples that we can't explain. I haven't heard of any
"qualitiative" rather than "quantitative" difference that exist
between humans and chimps. Intellectually, chimps are about
equivalent to 4 year old humans. We share all our tissues and
organs. Heck, we have about the same number of hair folicles on our
bodies as a chimp. The only differences in our brains seems to be
the size of the different sections. We seem to share all brain
parts. Sean has to demonstrate that his type of gap exists.

What probably gets to Sean is how his bogus 1000 aa argument breaks
down with closely related species like chimps and humans. Sean comes
face to face with one obvious fact. Any change in any gene, protein,
whatever, has to work within the whole. Whether some new change is
part of a large existing complex or the start of some future large
complex it has to work within what already exists. If it doesn't it
has to limp along and exist against selection to remove it, and most
likely it is lost. What we see are the changes that fit well enough
to make it. Sean can't cope with that fact. His whole 1000 aa bull
pucky is based on some stupid reality that doesn't exist. He comes
face to face with that reality with chimps and humans, and has to
demand that his opposition provide what he cannot. Sean has to
demonstrate that his type of gaps ever existed. He can't do that
with the human and chimp example.

Ron Okimoto

If a gene can "limp along and exist against selection to remove it"
as you say, then that kinda shoots evolution down to ZERO.

We know of examples of this. You can go into any extant population
and find deleterious mutations segregating. Just look up any paper on
mutation selection balance. We have examples where gene knockouts
have been fixed in populations and those species have had to deal with
loss of the gene. The gene responsible for vitamin C defficiency in
humans and other primates down to Monkeys is due to the knock out of a
single gene. The common ancestor of monkeys including the lineage
that evolved into humans is descended from a population where this
gene knock out got fixed due to genetic drift or founder effects or
some combination of such factors. Scurvy is the result of not having
enough vitamin C in our diets due to this gene loss. Evolution
doesn't necessarily allow only good things to happen. If it did
extinction would not be as common as it is.


How can random mutations take place if a gene can limp along and
exist against selection to remove it?

Really, just look up mutation selection balance and learn something.
Populations can exist with quite a load of deleterious mutations. It
isn't just theory, we have done genetic analysis of populations like
flies and even population studies of humans to demonstrate it. What
do you think it means when they estimate that every human carries a
genetic load of around 2.5. This means that the average human has the
equivalent of 2.5 recessive lethals in their genomes.

This isn't all bad. There are plenty of examples of where a second
mutation can "fix" the detrimental effects of another mutation. Look
up papers on second site reversions. This increases the evolutionary
potential of any population since Sean's gaps of 2 or 3 mutations can
obviously be crossed under such conditions. Just as Sean why he went
from demanding examples of 3 mutation gaps to his 1000 aa bull pucky.
He did the calculations himself and figured out that 3 mutation gaps
aren't that much of a problem. So he had to go into gap inflation.
It went from 3 to 20 and then 40 fairly quickly and then he settled on
the 1000 aa junk.


What other genes have existed against selection to remove it? Is
this resistance to selection random? Is it planed for in the gnome
we do not fully understand yet?

Seems to be pretty random. You can look into the data and try to find
any pattern that everyone else has missed.



Another nail in the coffin of evolution.

Just something else you are going to have to ignore or refuse to
understand.

I think all those nails are just getting pounded into your head
instead of the coffin you think that you are building. Maybe you
should try to point the nail gun in the right direction. Applying the
pressure safety to your forehead is not recommended in the manual.

Ron Okimoto

No. Either natural selection works or it does not work. Because what other genes have existed
against selection to remove it? This would mean that natural selection does not work in all
cases therefore cannot be responsible for such wide spread evolution over millions of years
because genes are know to remain regardless of selection against it.

The selection process has broken down.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is.
    ... The fact humans swim better ... >> chimps really must be due to natural selection because the weakest ... > history of chimps since the bifurcation of our lineages where in one ... > lineage increasing abilities in water led to greater survival. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Possible vs. Likely
    ... chimps, but NOT utterly absolutely completely impossible for members ... between chimps and humans, can not have? ... If a gene can "limp along and exist against selection to remove it" as you say, ... just look up mutation selection balance and learn something. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Possible vs. Likely
    ... impossible for humans to have "micro-evolved" their genetic ... differencesd with chimps, ... Any change in any gene, protein, ... mutation selection balance. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their
    ... But scientists have now found that chimps are ... more evolved than humans are, ... selection in chimpanzee evolution than in human evolution". ... just that more genes underwent selection in chimps than ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... If indeed the accounts of swimming chimps are not accounts ... that chimps can essentially teach themselves to swim ... > difference between humans and chimps is mitigated by a number of things ... > influences how selection and drift operate. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)