|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
For creationists who claim that microevolution and macroevolution are two different things, here is a simple challenge: Show us a single genetic difference between the human and chimp genome that could not have been produced by known microevolutionary processes in either the chimp or human lineages. But that didn't produce a new 'kind' ... oh wait ... by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Just for fun, I compared the chimp sequence to the gorilla sequence to figure out if those two mutations occurred in the chimp or human lineages. If the chimp and gorilla sequence is the same then the mutation happened in the human lineage. If the human and gorilla sequence is the same, then the mutation occurred in the chimp lineage. As it turns out, the first mutation in the opening post is specific to the chimp lineage, and the second mutation is specific to the human lineage (using BLASTn). Nicely done.
Are you sure about those time stamps at the bottom? I thought human/chimp split was ~10MYA, and this puts the split square in the lap of Ardipithecus ramidus and Ardipithecus kadabba:
quote: and it puts the gorilla split in the lap of Sahelanthropus tchadensis:
quote: Exciting times. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
A quick scan of a Google Scholar search seems to show that recent papers are still using divergence times of around 4-6 million years, with some papers going even as high as 8 MYA. I would suspect that 10 MYA would be an outlier with respect to the consensus. Or it is just old. I remember speculating when Sahelanthropus tchadensis was found that it could be the common ancestor with chimps.
As to Ardipithecus, it may push the common ancestor more towards the 6 MYA side of the equation than the 4 MYA Or it (or a close relative) is the common ancestor. We know already that it is intermediate in form and that "Behavioral analysis showed that Ardipithecus could be very similar to chimpanzees, indicating that the early human ancestors were very chimpanzee-like in behaviour.[1]" See The story of Bones and Dogs and Humans:
quote: The major difference in appearance I see being the hip bones, but not out of a reasonable realm for evolution. There are some missing bones for the Ardi reconstruction, so new finds will be needed to fill in that gap in our knowledge. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Why not first start a thread on the definitions and differences between microevolution and macroevolution? Several threads on this issue, see MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? for example. It starts with creationist misinformed definitions. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Do you truly think it fair expecting creationists to prove the changes were not the result of mutations, when you can't prove that they were? That's not quite what he asked in Message 1. He actually asked:
Show us a single genetic difference between the human and chimp genome that could not have been produced by known microevolutionary processes in either the chimp or human lineages. eg - compare the genomes and show which differences could not occur through mutations of the type observed in organisms today. Do you see the difference?
That asked, the chances of the mutations required between human and primate, occurring in the right gene and often enough in the population to change the genome of the entire species, are next to naught. By themselves, random base substitutions, and deletions, resulting in beneficial changes to the organism, do not occur frequently enough. Do you agree that domestic dogs and cats and cows and sheep show a wide variety of traits and sizes to the point where some dogs are remarkably different from other dogs?
That's a lot of genetic changes and a fair proportion of them are documented by historical observation in recent (geoplogical) years. If we compared the skeletons of those dogs to one another, would we see more or less variation than see here:
Inquiring minds want to know. Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Noted, but the poster cannot prove that the genetic differences were the produced by ME processes, any more than I can prove they were not. Again the question was not whether they were but whether they could be. In other words look at the types of mutations that we observe and show that there is something different that could not occur via one of the known types of mutations.
Ok, but those dogs were selectively bred, those homonids were not. A distinction without a difference. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
"Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then () , or one chance out of 10 . The number 10 , if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200- component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!" - Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. http://www.icr.org/...e/mathematical-impossibility-evolution Curiously math is incapable of affecting reality, it can only model it, and when the model and reality disagree it is the model that is faulty.
quote: Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... because it is incredibly complex and cannot function without all it's parts. Michael Behe in his book 'Darwin's Black Box' states, for example, Do you realize that his "irreducible complexity" claim has been falsified?
quote: Then there is also Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments quote: Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
CRR at ~6200 years. And yet you can't show any errors in the tree ring data that shows the earth is at least 10,444 ... as the last post on the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread shows. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Mike
For me it's reasonable to then say, "then the micro will reveal this macro change" so then show me micro changes which are changing a contraflow lung into a different design of lung, a novel anatomy! The excuse will be; "evolution doesn't have to take a different direction." But then isn't that a tacit admission that micro changes don't have to lead anywhere? No, Mike, the "excuse" will be that evolution doesn't work that way, it just adapts for fitness with the available traits due to mutations. But thanks for sharing what you think macroevolution entails.
... I would say the problem with your, "challenge" is that it is much less of a challenge to take two primates with a very similar body plan and say, "show me how it can't be micro". ... Such as Australopithicus and Chimpanzee?
Have at it. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... But as a skeletal plan, all are mammals with forward vision and a collar bone. That's about all that's shared. With hair, backward facing retinas, single eyelids (some cats and dogs have vestigial nictating membranes) ... But we can also count all the hand and foot bones, arm and leg bones ... can you tell me which of these bones are not in humans?
Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
When we compare the human genome to any two other species it is almost certain that one of those will be genetically closer to humans than the other. E.g. Human vs dog vs banana. I bet the dog is closer genetically. And why is that? Inquiring minds want to know ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Or were you asking why I think dogs would be genetically closer? Because we have in common many body tissues, organs, etc. that are built of similar proteins. From a common designer we would expect the genomes to contain many similar sequences. Leaving aside the issue of similar proteins being usable, while the non-coding markers show an inherited lineage pattern rather than one simply required for functionality ... You are claiming your designer copies and reuses specific designs, and this results in the patterns we see rather than evolution being the cause, yes? Inquiring minds want to know. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
discussing anything bible is not the topic. See Message 1:
quote: This is a simple request, based on actual empirical evidence and asking for actual empirical evidence. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The best evolutionary explanation for this is that the common ancestor species had all of those genes and each lineage has lost a large number of genes since separation. No, the best evolutionary explanationis that since separation, some genes have been lost and some new genes have been gained. You have not shown that evolution only results in loss, so you cannot base your hypothesis on incomplete information. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024