Chimpanzee-human genetic gap

That genetic homeostasis isn't found in sufficiently small populations.

Ray previously writes:My preceding post was my conclusion. You still don't get it even though you claim to.

Modulous responding writes:I see that you have examined my mind and have come to an infallible conclusion as to what I get. I 'get' that evolution and creationism are essentially two opposite views. That was basically all you posted

Ray responding writes:http://EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap -->EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gapWe can identify relatedness and commonality between species ad nauseum. None of this is in dispute.

If you're response is 'I agree that cladistics can be used to detect relatedness between species given assumptions and this is not in dispute' then that is great. We can get to the core of the argument.

Assumption: All species share a common ancestor.DNA evidence -> Chimpanzees are most closesly related
Cladistics -> Chimpanzees are most closely relatedOK, so where do we go from here? There are three possible reasons why Chimps crop up as the most closely related based on two independent lines of enquiry:1. Chimpanzees ARE the most related to humans
2. The creator made them that way
3. CoincidenceCan we agree that we are basically left with these options (I'm sure other options can be concocted, but these are the core ones under dispute)?

So you admit that it's a fact? And that therefore, your vaunted "barrier" is only present for large populations; which are precisely the populations where we don't tend to see speciation and macroevolution?

But you've just admitted this can't be true.

If you accept that genetic homeostasis isn't observed in sufficiently small populations, which is an understood fact of the homeostasis you're referring to (I'll assume that you did your homework on homeostasis before you brought it up in the debate)

then we know that there's no "genetic barrier" at all, and that homeostasis is a function of population interactions and not any kind of individual genetic limit.

It's really quite simple, Ray. So answer the question. What's your explanation for why sufficiently small populations are not homeostatic?

No, Ray, you still don't understand. Not in "subset species."

Do you understand genetic homeostasis, yet? No matter what organism, it's not observed in small populations. If you seperate individuals from a homeostatic population they stop being homeostatic.

CF writes:http://EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap -->EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gapWe're talking about populations, period. A large population exhibits genetic homeostasis. Kidnap a small SUBSET of those individuals, seperate them from the large population, and homeostasis disappears in those individuals. (caps mine)

making it something questionable when compared to any thing similar

Perhaps this was how Mayr managed to be deragoatory on the topic?

Modulous writes:We now have a test for common ancestry, should it exist. If common ancestry does exist this pattern should apply to all other organisms. As it turns out, this pattern of genetic difference and cladistics continues to an extraordinary degree. If common ancestry does not exist, this pattern will either not exist, or this pattern must have been deliberately engineered by the creator. This leaves some pretty hefty questions about the creator and its motiviations, which is more your area than mine.Common ancestry has been massively tested and has not been falsified. And that is what the genetic gap basically means to evolutionists. It is a way of showing two independent lines of investigation coming to the same conclusions. There is a further independent line of investigation, which confirms common ancestry to mindblowing levels. I've already discussed it, but it might take a long time going through it, so we can just leave it there.

Ray writes:GH seen and confirmed in the fossil record falsifies common ancestry.

WK responding writes:OK, please provide some references for this,

where the evidence for genetic rather than morphological stasis in the fossil record.

At best all you can show is an indirect measure of variation in a fossil population and a similar measure for a fossil population from a different time period.

This is a complete nonsense statement, you clearly still do not actually understand what genetic homeostasis is.

To my mind this is a pretty good analogy for genetic homeostasis. In a normal situation there will normally be continuous small changes in the environment which can interact with an organisms genome to affect its phenotype. In a population with a relatively high degree of variation, i.e a number of highly heterogenous loci, these environmental fluctuations can be compensated for resulting in little if any difference in the observed variation of the phenotype. The heterozygosity also has the advantage that when there is a more long term or drastic shift in the environment there is a larger pool of genetic variation from which a new 'optimally' fit phenotype can arise.Consequently a population can maintain a higher average level of fitness in the longterm by carrying a pool of heteotic genes which are not themselves the fittest available for their current environment. There is a trade of between 'optimum' fitness for the specific environment and the ability to compensate for environmental fluctuations.Gould and others may have offered GH as an explanation of static morphologies in the fossil record but without any actual genetic data it cannot concievably be considered convincing evidence for it. Any actual genetic evidence comes from population genetics studies.The only methods of studying genetic variability in fossils are indirect, such as studying fluctuating asymmetries in fossil morphologies. Fluctuating asymmetries are usually correlated with the degree of developmental, and to an extent genetic, homeostasis.

"Kinds" are a (bogus) classification, encompassing members of different populations and species;

"large population" refers to a large number of individuals of the same species.

Genetic homeostasis is not observed within "kinds"

it is observed within large populations, and absent in small populations

This fundamental fact confirms evolution, allows for macroevolution,

Discussion with you will not be possible until you retract your false accusations and act in good faith to understand the issue under discussion.

you typify the creationist inability to grapple with legitimate discussion of science.

So the answer is "no", then. You can't think of a single situation where members of a large population might be seperated from it.

http://EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap -->EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gapYou honestly can't think of a situation where a large population would be made small, or a small section of that population might be cut off from the large? Honestly? You lack that much imagination?

And how do bible quotes have anything to do the chimp/human genetic gap, or for biology what so ever?

You also mentioned one of your sources was 'Richard Milton'. He seems to have a rather colorful set of theories just about everythying scientific. None of it is mainsteam. Some of it is down right on the strange side. Hr does not seem to have any biological training either.The same goes for Dr Gene Scott too.What peer reviewed biologial article did either of those write? What training and degrees in science did they earn?Here is Dr Park's seven signs of Bogus science gave a group of federal judges when they asked abotu the relability for expert testemony

The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

Herepton, Scientists are sceptical investigators. Science constantly updates to reflect new knowledge and factual understanding.
Essentially religions seek to prove a negative ("the absence of 'x' can only mean divine intervention is at play"). This is simply a leap of faith, nurtured in the minds of those that cant think for themselves.Science is a long journey.
Those without imagination on the other hand never evolve as all thier answers lay convieniently in an old book written by the magicians and showmen of the day.If we follow your logic (that absence of discovery = evidence of God) science should have given up long ago when faced with an initial lack of understanding. Science continues undaunted to fill the knowledge gaps.