Re: Possible vs. Likely

Ron O wrote:
On Nov 29, 12:45 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.-

Selection doesn't work on miracles. It has to work under natural
conditions within the system that selection is working in. Lots of
scientists have worked this stuff out for nearly a century. Selection
isn't immediate except for certain mutations like ones that are
dominant lethals. Dominant lethals are where just one mutant allele
is enough to affect the embryo enough to kill it. Most detrimental
mutations are recessive lethals. This just means that before
selection can act to remove the mutation you have to have a high
enough frequency of the mutation in the population for homozygotes to
form and be selected against. You can look at standard Mendelian
genetics and see that even when you mate two carriers with the same
mutation together only 1/4 of their progeny will be selected against.
1/2 of their progeny will be heterozygous carriers like the parents
and will not be selected against. It is all just genetics. If you
would look it up instead of coming up with your brain dead
pronoucements you would be much better off. Didn't I tell you to look
up mutation selection balance? This is just the state where the rate
of new mutation occurring is balanced by the number of mutations taken
out of the population by selection. This balance can result in more
or less detrimental and lethal alleles in the population depending on
factors like mating behaviour and number of progeny produced. Humans
have suffered a recent bottle neck and likely inbreeding due to small
bands and villages that was the human population before the last few
thousand years and we have a genetic load of 2.5, but there are
species that do not inbreed (they do not mate with relatives) and
maintain a genetic load of over 15. This is just the genetic load of
detrimental variation allowed and doesn't say anything about the
variation in the population that is neutral.

Humans are short on genetic variation compared to other species. We
think that this is due to a population bottle neck where the effective
population size of the human race may have dropped to around 1000
individuals within the last 100,000 years. Some posit more than one
bottleneck event. If you take any two humans you will find them
different in about 1 in 1000 base-pairs of their DNA. If you looked
at a group of around 30 distantly related humans you would find
differences more frequently that 1 in 300 base-pairs. There are three
billion base-pairs in a haploid human genome. If you took the entire
human population of over 7 billion people, everyone has 200 or more
new mutations that they have inherited from both of their parents.
Nearly every site in the human genome has been hit multiple times by
new mutations just in the extant population. About the only mutations
that you will not observe in the extant population are the dominant
lethals that are already dead.

Most species have about 5 times the genetic variation found in humans,
but some like Cheetahs have even less genetic variation. If you took
around 30 relatively unrelated domestic chickens you would likely find
genetic variants around 1 in every 30 base-pairs. Chickens have a
genetic load of around 6, so there isn't a linear relationship between
detrimental variation carried in a population and the total genetic
variation.

So populations have a boat load of genetic variation in them. You
can't counter that fact with inane blather, or deny that selection is
taking place when even you could go out and measure it if you took the
time to learn how to do it.

Ron Okimoto


Well *Ron*. If it is "all just genetics" as you claim, then genetically speaking, there is no
need for selection to have such a high priority regarding evolution because if it cannot breed
and produce a fertile offspring then it is not genetically the same. Selection is only
'observed' to produce a sub-species such as the dog within their kind.

"Each After His kind". Exactly as the bible says.

Example: Dogs are after his own "kind" called "wolf"

It really is THAT simple.
--

It is all about the genetic truth with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The driving force of evolution
    ... genetic drift) cannot compete and win against non random selection. ... genetics account for all the heritable differences between say, ... where a single mutation in a single protein alters the way an entire cell ... The answer that makes most sense is that when a single amino acid ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Possible vs. Likely
    ... We don't know enough about the genetics of humans and apes to be ... chimps, but NOT utterly absolutely completely impossible for members ... just look up mutation selection balance and learn something. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Possible vs. Likely
    ... impossible for humans to have "micro-evolved" their genetic ... mutation selection balance. ... mutation can "fix" the detrimental effects of another mutation. ... It is all just genetics. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Non-random mutation of the genome from apes to humans
    ... Project/the Chimpanzee Genome Project) but appear to be genuine. ... genetic differences between humans and chimps. ... individual per generation (the mutation rate), which is the same as the ... That does not mean that selection is not important in the difference ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Neis "new mutation theory" resurrects William Bateson
    ... "The large number of variants arising in each generation by mutation ... Valentine JW: Evolution: W.H. Freeman, 1977, p. 72) ... variability available to the action of natural selection. ... 1955, Evolution, Genetics and Man. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)