Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge

Here, you just need to backtrack from Percy's message.Supplementary Figure 7: Gene family expansions and contractions. (264 KB)(a) Inferred gene gains (red) and losses (blue) in 8,877 gene families shared by 10 mammalian species are reported for each branch of the tree. (b) Number of gains (red) and losses (blue) per million years for each branch of the tree; human (H), chimpanzee (C), human and chimp (HC), orangutan (O), apes (A), rhesus macaque (M), apes and Old World monkeys (AO), marmoset (Cj), primates (P), mouse (S), rat (R), rodents (N), primates and rodents (PN), dog (D), horse (E), dog and horse (DE), cow (B) and Afrotheria (Af).(I'm pretty sure the colours are swapped between graphs despite what the legend says)Edited by CRR, : "not" deleted from last sentence

In order to determine a rate you need a change and a time period over which the change is measured. I understand that there are gains and losses. I don't see the time period in the original graphs, and your message responding to me does not show one either.

(b) Number of gains (red) and losses (blue) per million years ...

Here is a good link to the figure Suppl. Fig 7If we figure an average generation time of 25 years, that would give us 40,000 generations in a million years. So to calculate the number of generations to gain or lose a gene we can divided number of generations by number of mutations per million years.

organism	# genes gained	# genes lost	mutation rate / gen	# gen. / loss or gain
Human	250	-	.0063	160
"	-	50	.0013	800
Chimp	50	-	.0013	800
"	-	150	.0038	260
Orangutan	30	-	.0008	1300
"	-	200	.005	200

So... worst case, humans gained, on average, 1 gene every 160 generations, that is every 4,000 years. Orangutans lost a gene every 5,000 years.What's the incredibly high mutation rate you see here?HBDABE: Here is the original paper that figure is from in case anyone is interested. Common Marmoset genome. It is quite an intense paper, with around 100 authors, a dozen supplemental figures and about 40 supplemental tables. Edited by herebedragons, : added link to original paperEdited by herebedragons, : the colors indicating loss or gain in Suppl Fig 7 were swapped around, the chart above has been corrected to reflect this.Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Thanks for the good link. Suppl. Fig 7If you look at figure (b) you will notice the blue bar for humans is the highest of the lot, about 5-6 times the average, and to match figure (a) that should be gains. I didn't do any specific calculations to confirm that this but checking now 1439/6 (million years)=240 so that matches gains shown in figure (a).

Ah yes, they did swap the colors around, I do now remember you mentioning that. I thought it kind of odd (unexpected) that humans lost genes compared to other groups, but that they have the highest number of gains makes more sense. I will revise my chart to reflect this correction.HBD

The grand question is what does all of this have to do with the topic in the opening post?

It's called "muddying the waters"HBD

Not much, but these forums often drift off into side issues.I've already said I'm not interested in answering the original topic because it is set up as a no win proposition.

Yes, we've noticed you don't answer or even respond to questions asked of you. If you can't win any of these arguments what does that tell you?

It was not a "no win proposition." Message 1 posed a simple question: why aren't two SNPs just nothing more than two microevolutionary events?I don't know what you're afraid of. An SNP is the most basic of microevolutionary events. Two SNPs would be two basic microevolutionary events. What is the problem with simply acknowledging this?--Percy

If you can't point to a single difference between the human and chimp genomes that could not be produced by microevolution, then why do you claim that microevolution can not accumulate into macroevolution and that evolution can not produce new information?