Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 190 of 252 (816723)
08-10-2017 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by NoNukes
08-09-2017 7:27 PM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
NoNukes writes:
Why wouldn't we expect something like a roughly equal amount of diversion between the species, assuming that they have a common ancestor?
I believe there are roughly equal numbers of non-homologous genes on each side.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by NoNukes, posted 08-09-2017 7:27 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Taq, posted 08-10-2017 10:44 AM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 193 of 252 (816764)
08-10-2017 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Taq
08-10-2017 10:44 AM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Taq, posted 08-10-2017 10:44 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by RAZD, posted 08-10-2017 8:26 PM CRR has replied
 Message 196 by Pressie, posted 08-11-2017 6:33 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 197 by Taq, posted 08-11-2017 10:55 AM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 195 of 252 (816769)
08-11-2017 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by RAZD
08-10-2017 8:26 PM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
RAZD writes:
No, the best evolutionary explanation is that since separation, some genes have been lost and some new genes have been gained.
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."
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by RAZD, posted 08-10-2017 8:26 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Taq, posted 08-11-2017 11:00 AM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 199 of 252 (816824)
08-11-2017 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Taq
08-11-2017 11:00 AM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Taq, posted 08-11-2017 11:00 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Taq, posted 08-11-2017 6:10 PM CRR has replied
 Message 201 by Coyote, posted 08-11-2017 11:57 PM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 202 of 252 (816889)
08-13-2017 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Taq
08-11-2017 6:10 PM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
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:
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.
Make the right assumptions about the common ancestor and allow enough deletions and you can explain anything!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Taq, posted 08-11-2017 6:10 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Taq, posted 08-14-2017 11:15 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 204 by Percy, posted 08-15-2017 7:23 AM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 205 of 252 (817255)
08-16-2017 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Percy
08-15-2017 7:23 AM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Percy, posted 08-15-2017 7:23 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 08-16-2017 10:10 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 207 by Taq, posted 08-16-2017 11:13 AM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 208 of 252 (817343)
08-16-2017 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Taq
08-16-2017 11:13 AM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Taq, posted 08-16-2017 11:13 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Percy, posted 08-17-2017 7:35 AM CRR has replied
 Message 210 by Taq, posted 08-17-2017 11:06 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 213 by Meddle, posted 08-21-2017 9:07 AM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 211 of 252 (817628)
08-18-2017 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Percy
08-17-2017 7:35 AM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
What do you consider a "statistically significant amount of genetic information"?
quote:
let me [Durston] propose the following definitions, which I will continue to use:
Microevolution: genetic variation that requires no statistically significant increase in functional information.
Macroevolution: genetic change that requires a statistically significant increase in functional information.
Both statistical significance and functional information are already defined in the literature. We also have a method to measure evolutionary change in terms of functional information, so we are ready to move on, avoiding the two mistakes discussed above.
Edited by CRR, : Link added

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Percy, posted 08-17-2017 7:35 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 08-19-2017 9:41 AM CRR has seen this message but not replied
 Message 214 by Taq, posted 08-23-2017 11:49 AM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 215 of 252 (818321)
08-27-2017 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Meddle
08-21-2017 9:07 AM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Meddle, posted 08-21-2017 9:07 AM Meddle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Percy, posted 08-27-2017 12:31 PM CRR has not replied
 Message 217 by Taq, posted 08-28-2017 11:14 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 218 by CRR, posted 08-30-2017 12:04 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 226 by Meddle, posted 08-31-2017 11:01 PM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 218 of 252 (818517)
08-30-2017 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by CRR
08-27-2017 3:48 AM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by CRR, posted 08-27-2017 3:48 AM CRR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by JonF, posted 08-30-2017 8:49 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 223 by Percy, posted 08-30-2017 8:56 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 225 by Taq, posted 08-30-2017 10:48 AM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 219 of 252 (818518)
08-30-2017 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Taq
08-23-2017 11:49 AM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
Taq writes:
If the differences between the human and chimp genomes do not constitute a "statistically significant increase in functional information", ...
The differences between the human and chimp genomes constitute a "statistically significant difference 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Taq, posted 08-23-2017 11:49 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Pressie, posted 08-30-2017 8:40 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 222 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2017 8:54 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 224 by Taq, posted 08-30-2017 10:42 AM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 227 of 252 (818968)
09-04-2017 6:02 PM


Genetic Differences
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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Taq, posted 09-05-2017 2:40 PM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 230 of 252 (819139)
09-07-2017 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Taq
09-05-2017 2:40 PM


Re: Genetic Differences
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?
From Percy in Message 223

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Taq, posted 09-05-2017 2:40 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Pressie, posted 09-07-2017 6:43 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 232 by Taq, posted 09-07-2017 10:51 AM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 233 of 252 (819183)
09-07-2017 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Taq
09-07-2017 10:51 AM


Re: Genetic Differences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Taq, posted 09-07-2017 10:51 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Taq, posted 09-07-2017 5:44 PM CRR has replied
 Message 235 by NoNukes, posted 09-07-2017 5:44 PM CRR has not replied
 Message 236 by Percy, posted 09-07-2017 6:01 PM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 237 of 252 (819191)
09-07-2017 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Taq
09-07-2017 5:44 PM


Re: Genetic Differences
(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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Taq, posted 09-07-2017 5:44 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Taq, posted 09-08-2017 12:42 PM CRR has not replied
 Message 239 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2017 9:14 AM CRR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024