|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
I believe there are roughly equal numbers of non-homologous genes on each side. Why wouldn't we expect something like a roughly equal amount of diversion between the species, assuming that they have a common ancestor? The Ensemble pages I linked previously show that humans have many genes that have no homologue anywhere in the chimp genome. Taq has stated that the best explanation is gene loss in the chimp lineage, but not in the human lineage, since separation from the common ancestor. Do you agree with Taq? The Ensemble site shows that chimps have many genes that have no homologue anywhere in the human genome.What do you think is the best explanation for this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
So then the human and chimp genomes both contain genes that have no homologue in the other.
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. Are you counting this gene loss as microevolution or macroevolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
That's interesting RAZD. Back at Message 182 regarding human genes that had no homologue in the chimp genome Taq said, "The explanation is gene loss in the chimp lineage, but not in the human lineage." No, the best evolutionary explanation is that since separation, some genes have been lost and some new genes have been gained.What then regarding chimp genes that have no homologue in the human genome? Are there genes that have been gained since separation? A list would be good if you can find one.Would gene gain be counted as micro or macroevolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Do you think the evolution of humans from a common ancestor shared with chimps is microevolution?
No, because I don't think they evolved from a common ancestor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
If humans did evolve from a common ancestor shared with chimps, would you accept that as an example of macroevolution?
That would depend on what changes were required to produce the differences and how you define micro/macro evolution. As I've said before IF the common ancestor had all the human genes that chimps lack (and vice versa) and IF you define genetic loss as microevolution THEN it could be entirely microevolution. This is why I originally said that you had arranged a "no win" challenge since you can make any assumptions you want and your definition of "microevolution" is so broad that such a scenario is permissible. From Message 1 For creationists who claim that microevolution and macroevolution are two different things, here is a simple challenge:
Make the right assumptions about the common ancestor and allow enough deletions and you can explain anything! 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. Just for clarity, I am defining a microevolutionary change as a single mutational event (e.g. base substitution, insertion, deletion, transposon insertion, retroviral insertion, or genetic recombination) that is passed on to descendants. Of more interest would be to show that ALL genetic differences can be produced from a common ancestor having only genes that are orthologous within the great apes, and ensuring that all required changes produce no decrease in fitness and are fixed within the required time frame (allow 10 million years). btw Dr Adequate in another thread showed that genetic drift could have caused a substantial amount of difference in a time period of ~7 million years. That could get you off to a good start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
These are the definitions of micro and macroevolution you offered in Message 183:
What I was trying to point out is that there is no single agreed definition for micro/macroevolution. I said I preferred Durston's definition and gave the definitions from the flashcard website as another comparison. The point is that the definitions you quoted from Wikipedia are not universally agreed. Both the definitions I gave disagreed with your quoted definition for macroevolution. In message 1 Taq is trying to define microevolution as a single mutation event including almost any possible change, including an insertion of any size. The de novo appearance of a fully functional orphan gene as a single insertion would therefore be counted as microevolution. There are no limits as to fitness, waiting time, or any other realistic constraint. Basically Taq allows himself a magic wand to accomplish any imaginable change in an arbitrary time. As I said, it's a no win challenge and I'm not going to play.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
I am defining macroevolution as the differences between humans and chimps. Since it is only a hypothesis that humans and chimps developed from a common ancestor your definition is circular reasoning.I am defining macroevolution as a gain of a statistically significant amount of genetic information. Remind me, how do you explain that every human/chimp chromosome has genes that are non-homologous between humans and chimps?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
What do you consider a "statistically significant amount of genetic information"? quote: Edited by CRR, : Link added
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
However, of the genes you listed in Message 167, all have homologues in the Orangutan and most are also found in the Gorilla and even the Macaque.
This is an interesting question.If humans have a gene that has no homologue in chimps but has homologues in Orangutan, Gorilla, and Macaque what is the best explanation? Did this gene evolve independently in 4 species but not in the other; or is it a gene that comes from a common ancestor and was lost in the chimp species? Similarly there are genes in the chimp that have no homologue in humans but does have homologues in Orangutan, Gorilla, and Macaque. How would you explain this?It seems that you find many genes that appear to be shared across several species but are missing from some. What does this indicate for how you view primate evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
If humans have a gene that has no homologue in chimps but has homologues in Orangutan, Gorilla, and Macaque what is the best explanation?
Did this gene evolve independently in 4 species but not in the other; or is it a gene that comes from a common ancestor and was lost in the chimp species? Percy writes:
The latter.Taq writes: Gene loss in the chimp lineage. Similarly there are genes in the chimp that have no homologue in humans but does have homologues in Orangutan, Gorilla, and Macaque. How would you explain this?
Percy writes:
Same way.Taq writes: Gene loss in the human lineage. So the hypothetical common ancestor of humans and chimps would have had a few hundred more genes that either humans or chimps. The hypothetical common ancestor of humans, chimps, Orangutan, Gorilla, and Macaque must have had several hundred more genes than any of its descendants. So this would be clear evidence of devolution. Creationists have been saying for some time that devolution, rather than evolution, is what we observe in nature. Darwin got it backwards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
The differences between the human and chimp genomes constitute a "statistically significant difference in functional information". If the differences between the human and chimp genomes do not constitute a "statistically significant increase in functional information", ... Since you and Percy have agreed that both humans and chimps have lost a large number of genes since the hypothetical common ancestor you should be arguing that this constitutes a "statistically significant loss in functional information". Since this requires no statistically significant increase in functional information it would be microevolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
So Percy and Taq argued that non-homologous genes between humans and chimps was due to gene loss in each. Having realised the error of their argument they are now arguing for the appearance of lineage specific genes.
I thank Percy for the chart that provides some gains and losses in number of genes. I find it particularly interesting to note the apparently high mutation rates in humans, chimps, orangotangs, mice and rats. Is this high rate of gene loss and gain observed in these populations today?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
I find it particularly interesting to note the apparently high mutation rates in humans, chimps, orangotangs, mice and rats. Where are you getting this from?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
(a) shows the numbers of losses and gains.
(b) shows the rates You have to backtrack to the article that Percy referenced; which I did. I agree with Percy that the graphs require further explanation. I couldn't work out the numbers on the right either. [edit] btw I thing the colours are reversed between the two graphs, which makes it a bit confusing. Edited by CRR, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024