Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8842 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2018 1:04 AM
227 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 226 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 833,910 Year: 8,733/29,783 Month: 980/1,977 Week: 118/380 Day: 2/66 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Author Topic:   How will creationists react to the first human-chimp hybrid?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1443 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 76 of 138 (449808)
01-19-2008 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Hyroglyphx
01-18-2008 10:41 PM


Re: What I would think in lieu of ________
If a chimp looks like us, does it necessarily mean that they are related?

No, of course not.

But let's add in remarkable DNA similarity, down to containing not only the same functions, but also the same mistakes, and ERV sequences.

And finally, let us add in (yet to be proved) interfertility.

If you are going to claim non-relatedness at this point, then you really are desperately clutching at straws.

I repeat...

name a pair of interfertile creatures that are not intimately related (either through recent evolutionary common-ancestor, or through micro-evolutionary change within the relevant kind subsequent to the original progenitor pair leaving the ark)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-18-2008 10:41 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-20-2008 12:32 AM cavediver has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17326
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 77 of 138 (449817)
01-19-2008 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by johnfolton
01-18-2008 11:13 PM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
johnfolton writes:

Plus she is thought to have lived over a hundred thousand years ago, not 6000 years ago.

That all depends how you calibrate the mutation rates for mitochondrial dna.

Well, actually, it doesn't depend upon how you determine mutation rates as much as how accurately. Analyses based upon evidence yield an age for Mitochondrial Eve greater than a hundred thousand years. An age of 6000 years isn't based upon evidence but upon the Bible and so is not scientific.

The visible universe was not receding faster than the speed of light at the time it emitted the light we see today.

Interesting it brings the entire universe much closer meaning the space separating the galaxies is not bound by lights speed even if light is, etc...

Yes, that's what the evidence tells us.

I'm still not convinced the light wave is not stretching too...

Your instincts are good, because the light wave *is* stretching along with the expansion of space. The wavelengths of light arriving from distant galaxies are stretched longer causing a corresponding reduction in frequency toward the red. This is the infamous red shift. There are two contributors to red shift. One is the recession speed of the galaxy at the time the light was emitted. The other is the amount of stretching of the intervening space since the light was originally emitted.

Thanks though for explaining what you believe is the truth, it makes the universe appear to be much younger in that light.

All cosmological evidence points to a very ancient universe.

P.S. I don't expect you to believe what the answering from genesis folk said about the mutation rates but there is another point of view out there based on how mitochondrial dna mutates based on real data from the sources the answering from genesis folks quoted.

The Answers in Genesis folks do not do science and do not have independent data concerning mutation rates.

Since chimps don't have mitochondrial Eve's dna it certainly does not prove chimps are our cousins.

That is correct. Except in a general sense, Mitochondrial Eve has nothing to do with the evolutionary relationship between humans and chimps.

Mutations can both increase and decrease information.

I don't see how mutations can increase information to overcome the missing chromosome neccessary for a chimp/ape to become a man. The genetic information too creationists needs a programmer its too complicated hence the intelligent design movement.

You're mixing two different issues, and one of them has nothing to do with the discussion. There is no scientific claim concerning whether the human genome contains more or less information than the chimp genome, so we can just leave that issue aside.

This leaves your question about how, if chimps and humans share a common ancestor, that chimps have 24 chromosome pairs while humans have only 23. The answer is that human chromosome pair 2 is a fusion of two chromosome pairs found in chimps. This means that the common ancestor had 24 chromosome pairs. At some point this ancestral line broke into two separate lines, and in one of these lines two different chromosome pairs fused into one at some point in time, and today that is human chromosome pair 2.

The information we're teasing out of human/chimp genetic evidence is providing an increasingly complex story of our evolutionary history. It appears the ancestral lines separated and recombined at least twice.

We were created in the image of God according to the creationist folk and our image takes genetic information that an intelligent designer programmed within our dna.

But your story isn't supported by evidence and so isn't scientific, and once you mention God you reveal the religious foundation of your position.

Mutations can not account for the genetic information necessary.

This statement is not based upon any evidence. The basic principles of genetics demonstrate quite clearly that mutations can both increase and decrease information.

It's like God is the potter and we're the clay. Too me if genetic engineers starts playing with the clay it will be an abomination.

The analogy to God is drawn from the Bible and isn't science, but when stated this way it does seem repugnant. But where should we draw the line with genetic modification? It would be the height of perversity not to use a genetic cure for cystic fibrosis or Down's Syndrome, and that places us on the slippery slope.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by johnfolton, posted 01-18-2008 11:13 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2008 2:10 PM Percy has responded

    
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3672 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 78 of 138 (449818)
01-19-2008 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by johnfolton
01-18-2008 11:13 PM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
That all depends how you calibrate the mutation rates for mitochondrial dna.

No, it doesn't actually. "Mitochondrial Eve" is the result of a mathematical population genetics model called "Coalescent Theory". (You can find a reasonably clear introduction here). To grossly oversimplify, coalescence traces genetic lineages back in time from the present (unlike many pop gen models which take a present population and project changes in genetic composition into the future), to a point where different genetic lineages come together - the "coalescence", or "most recent common matrilineal ancestor". Coalescence of mtDNA lineages, operating only through the female (matrilineal) line, does NOT mean there was only one woman alive at that point. It means that all of her other female contemporaries either were also the ancestors of all modern humans (because the carried the same mutations) or left no current descendants. The coalescence of "her" (actually better said "their") mtDNA lineage comes in at around 140,000-200,000 years ago (see, for instance, Cann RL, Stoneking M and Wilson AC, 1987, "Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution", Nature 325:31-36).

The point of all this is: don't get too wrapped up in a name. Scientists can be as unfortunately whimsical in their "popularized names" as anybody else. Naming the mtDNA "most recent common matrilineal ancestor" "Eve" was simply whimsy, and not intended to be related in any way shape or form to the Biblical "Eve".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by johnfolton, posted 01-18-2008 11:13 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by NosyNed, posted 01-19-2008 11:28 AM Quetzal has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8807
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 79 of 138 (449838)
01-19-2008 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Quetzal
01-19-2008 9:02 AM


A question for Quetzal re Y and mtDNA lineages
It means that all of her other female contemporaries either were also the ancestors of all modern humans (because the carried the same mutations) or left no current descendants.

Doesn't it mean that she left "no currant descendants" through an unbroken mother to daughter line? She may well have descendants alive but there may have been a generation of all males between her and us. Correto?

I was explaining the mtDNA Eve and Y Adam to friends awhile ago and this question came to mind:

Is there an initial population size where, over enough time, you MUST get down to a single Y ancestor and singe mtDNA ancestor showing in the resultant population? In other words, is this result just what you would expect if the human (for example) population stays not "too" large for long enough?

I see this happening by pure chance as once a line happens to encounter an all male (for the mtDNA) generation it is gone and over time we would expect the number of threads of mtDNA to dwindle.

Has there been any pop. gen work on this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Quetzal, posted 01-19-2008 9:02 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Quetzal, posted 01-19-2008 12:31 PM NosyNed has responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3672 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 80 of 138 (449846)
01-19-2008 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by NosyNed
01-19-2008 11:28 AM


Re: A question for Quetzal re Y and mtDNA lineages
Doesn't it mean that she left "no currant descendants" through an unbroken mother to daughter line? She may well have descendants alive but there may have been a generation of all males between her and us. Correto?

"Eve" is the one that did leave descendants. Her contemporaries that didn't have the particular neutral mutation patterns in their mtDNA that we see today are the ones that didn't. And yes, there could very well have been a "break" in the non-Eve lineages where only males were produced. The .pdf I referenced has a couple of nice diagrams showing how this could happen.

Is there an initial population size where, over enough time, you MUST get down to a single Y ancestor and singe mtDNA ancestor showing in the resultant population? In other words, is this result just what you would expect if the human (for example) population stays not "too" large for long enough?

Not really. I'm not expert at this (pop gen was my second worst course in school, and I have attemptd faithfully to avoid it since), but my understanding is that initial population size doesn't matter - eventually every lineage will coalesce. Remember, we're tracing polymorphisms back in time from current populations. Additionally, it doesn't matter much what the size of the sample of modern populations is - the statistical variance based on sample size, which is usually 1/n, is only 1/logn with coalescent theory (don't ask me why). So either way you look at it, population size doesn't matter.

I see this happening by pure chance as once a line happens to encounter an all male (for the mtDNA) generation it is gone and over time we would expect the number of threads of mtDNA to dwindle.

Yeah. The whole concept arose out of pop gen attempts to model random drift.

Has there been any pop. gen work on this?

Tons. Here's a good review: Rosenberg NA and Nordborg M, 2002, Geneological trees, coalescent theory, and the analysis of genetic polymorphisms, Nature Reviews 3:380-390. That review covers most of the studies up to that point (2002).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by NosyNed, posted 01-19-2008 11:28 AM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by NosyNed, posted 01-19-2008 1:42 PM Quetzal has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8807
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 81 of 138 (449860)
01-19-2008 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Quetzal
01-19-2008 12:31 PM


Re: A question for Quetzal re Y and mtDNA lineages
"Eve" is the one that did leave descendants.

Pronoun antecedent problems here. My "she" was the one who left her mtDNA in no descendents. :)

A point of clarification might be good here:
While "Eve: maybe the only one whose mtDNA got through that does NOT mean that many other women don't have descendants alive today. In fact, I may be related to half (or more ) of ALL humans alive 100,000 years ago. Nao?

Not really. I'm not expert at this (pop gen was my second worst course in school, and I have attemptd faithfully to avoid it since), but my understanding is that initial population size doesn't matter - eventually every lineage will coalesce. Remember, we're tracing polymorphisms back in time from current populations. Additionally, it doesn't matter much what the size of the sample of modern populations is - the statistical variance based on sample size, which is usually 1/n, is only 1/logn with coalescent theory (don't ask me why). So either way you look at it, population size doesn't matter.

The "tracing back from current" leaves me with a bit of room for confusion.

Are you saying "initial" == current population size doesn't matter? That makes sense to me.

When I said "initial" I meant the population at sometime in the past. Specifically the time of mtDNA Eve or Y Adam. Does that also not matter? It seems to me that it must matter. At least if it was larger then I must have more time before the lineages coalesce. Obviously a population of 20 million during Roman times will not have coalesced under most circumstances by now. But a population of 1,000 may well be almost sure to have.

BTW: I'm about half way through "Adam's Curse" by Bryan Sykes. It is an excellent read (that is easy) and full of interesting tidbits.

Thanks for the site. I'll have a peek to avoid any more silly questions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Quetzal, posted 01-19-2008 12:31 PM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Quetzal, posted 01-19-2008 1:51 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3672 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 82 of 138 (449861)
01-19-2008 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by NosyNed
01-19-2008 1:42 PM


Re: A question for Quetzal re Y and mtDNA lineages
Are you saying "initial" == current population size doesn't matter? That makes sense to me.

When I said "initial" I meant the population at sometime in the past. Specifically the time of mtDNA Eve or Y Adam. Does that also not matter? It seems to me that it must matter. At least if it was larger then I must have more time before the lineages coalesce. Obviously a population of 20 million during Roman times will not have coalesced under most circumstances by now. But a population of 1,000 may well be almost sure to have.

Yes to both. One of the sort of really counterintuitive parts of coalescent theory is that neither the initial (past) nor modern sample size matters for the calculations beyond a certain point (which I can't remember). In fact, the most recent female common ancestor of all living humans (from all genetic lineages male and female) lived around 10,000 years ago, and the most recent common ancestor period of all modern humans coalesces to around 3000 years ago. So yeah - we're all related. How's it going, cuz? Now you see why I gave up on pop gen. :D


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by NosyNed, posted 01-19-2008 1:42 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 83 of 138 (449867)
01-19-2008 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Percy
01-19-2008 8:39 AM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
Well, actually, it doesn't depend upon how you determine mutation rates as much as how accurately. Analyses based upon evidence yield an age for Mitochondrial Eve greater than a hundred thousand years. An age of 6000 years isn't based upon evidence but upon the Bible and so is not scientific.

The answers from genesis folk are quoting a review in Science Research News. The Parson team was stunned to find 1 mutation every 40 generations.

They expected to find 1 mutation every 600 generations but found science supporting creationists young earth despite the special pleadings of the evolutionists.

These modern day mutation rates are encouraging to the creationists and understandably discouraging to the evolutionist.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The review in Science’s ‘Research News’ goes still further about Eve’s date, saying that ‘using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.’ The article says about one of the teams of scientists (the Parsons team5) that ‘evolutionary studies led them to expect about one mutation in 600 generations ... they were “stunned” to find 10 base-pair changes, which gave them a rate of one mutation every 40 generations.’4

Evolutionists have tried to evade the force of these results by countering that the high mutation rate only occurs in certain stretches of DNA called ‘hot spots’ and/or that the high (observed) rate causes back mutations which ‘erase’ the effects of this high rate. Therefore, conveniently, the rate is assumed to be high over a short timespan, but effectively low over a long timespan. However, this is special pleading to get out of a difficulty, and the burden of proof is on evolutionists to sustain the vast ages for ‘Eve’ in the face of these documented, modern-day mutation rates. These are indeed encouraging results for creationists.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/eve.asp


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 01-19-2008 8:39 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by AdminNWR, posted 01-19-2008 2:20 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 85 by Percy, posted 01-19-2008 4:15 PM johnfolton has responded

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 138 (449868)
01-19-2008 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by johnfolton
01-19-2008 2:10 PM


Topic
Please try to stay on topic.

The topic has to do with human/chimp hybrids, not with mitochondrial DNA.


To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate Proposals

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 83 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2008 2:10 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 17326
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 2.1


    Message 85 of 138 (449887)
    01-19-2008 4:15 PM
    Reply to: Message 83 by johnfolton
    01-19-2008 2:10 PM


    Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
    There seems to be some concern on the part of board moderation that this thread is drifting off-topic. I can see valid arguments for making such a case, so I'll make my reply very short.

    Answers in Genesis is making rather obvious misinterpretations of the cited papers, particularly Parsons' work. You can find the correct information at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621_1.html.

    --Percy


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 83 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2008 2:10 PM johnfolton has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 86 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2008 7:08 PM Percy has responded

        
    johnfolton 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3391 days)
    Posts: 2024
    Joined: 12-04-2005


    Message 86 of 138 (449912)
    01-19-2008 7:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 85 by Percy
    01-19-2008 4:15 PM


    Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
    We'll at least we agree that a chimp/ape has no mitochondrial eve dna not that at some point some intelligent designer might manipulate genes to create some kind of abomination. Its enough that women have been granted equal rights but chimps?

    P.S. You all seem like you want to put the universe in a bottle and say the space inside the bottle increases but not the bottle. Like some are petitioning the courts to grant chimps equal rights. Is the world gone mad or going mad or what, etc... The courts should not of even heard the case that they did shows how far animal right groups are willing to go to have the chimp declared a person.

    I mean you create some abomination then some will be petitioning the courts for equal rights.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    There remain many significant differences between human and chimpanzee DNA

    alleged fusion of two chromosomes to make human chromosome 2
    differences in telomere length between humans and apes
    chromosomal inversions
    differences in repetitive DNA elements
    In conclusion, the Patterson study does little to explain the molecular data. Even from an evolutionary perspective there are more plausible alternative explanations than hybridization events. Nor does the study significantly challenge the creationist assertion that humans and chimpanzees never shared a common ancestor. It does, however, demonstrate the incredible lengths to which evolutionists must go to rebuff the truth: humans and chimpanzees are now, and have always been, two different kinds.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0531chimp.asp

    Chimps Are Not People, Austrian Court Rules, Group Says”

    The Supreme Court of Austria has ruled that a chimpanzee cannot be legally declared a person, reports the Associated Press. But for how long?

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/19/news-to-note-01192008


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 85 by Percy, posted 01-19-2008 4:15 PM Percy has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 87 by Percy, posted 01-19-2008 8:05 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 17326
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 2.1


    Message 87 of 138 (449921)
    01-19-2008 8:05 PM
    Reply to: Message 86 by johnfolton
    01-19-2008 7:08 PM


    Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
    This is off-topic, so I'll be very brief:

    johnfolton writes:

    P.S. You all seem like you want to put the universe in a bottle and say the space inside the bottle increases but not the bottle.

    As far as science can tell at the current time, nothing restricts the size of universe. Science makes no claim that space is increasing while the volume of the universe remains the same. The universe is expanding, and the rate of expansion is increasing.

    --Percy


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 86 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2008 7:08 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

        
    johnfolton 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3391 days)
    Posts: 2024
    Joined: 12-04-2005


    Message 88 of 138 (449935)
    01-19-2008 9:41 PM


    You could look at it all like chimps and humans like two galaxies inside a jar that are said not moving yet while the space between them is said to be increasing.

    You see this in like kind species genes mutate as generations increase. When like kind gene pools are separated they eventually start having problems interbreeding.

    Ring species comes to mind where the mutations of the genes like in two sea gulls gene pools separated over time they can not interbreed because of the increase in mutations separating the two gene pools.

    What I'm saying there is more than just one fused chromosome and different genetic information between chimps and humans. As time increases so do the mutations to all the genes ensuring only like kind creatures multiply.

    Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


    Replies to this message:
     Message 92 by Percy, posted 01-20-2008 8:44 AM johnfolton has responded

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Member (Idle past 291 days)
    Posts: 5512
    From: Austin, TX
    Joined: 05-03-2006


    Message 89 of 138 (449961)
    01-20-2008 12:32 AM
    Reply to: Message 76 by cavediver
    01-19-2008 4:33 AM


    Re: What I would think in lieu of ________
    DNA similarity, down to containing not only the same functions, but also the same mistakes, and ERV sequences.

    The only thing that could make me seriously believe that chimps and humans are from the same descent are shared mistakes. Because similarities are specious for the sole reason that it does not prove relatedness. However, the same genetic mistakes would seriously bring in to question the relatedness of one organism from another.

    name a pair of interfertile creatures that are not intimately related (either through recent evolutionary common-ancestor, or through micro-evolutionary change within the relevant kind subsequent to the original progenitor pair leaving the ark)

    A pair of infertile creature that are NOT intimately related? All of them...

    Did you mean a creature that is related to another, but the progeny is infertile? Like a mule?

    I don't understand the question. Can you expound?


    “There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 76 by cavediver, posted 01-19-2008 4:33 AM cavediver has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 90 by DrJones*, posted 01-20-2008 12:54 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
     Message 91 by molbiogirl, posted 01-20-2008 2:18 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
     Message 96 by cavediver, posted 01-20-2008 3:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

        
    DrJones*
    Member
    Posts: 1701
    From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Joined: 08-19-2004
    Member Rating: 2.8


    Message 90 of 138 (449964)
    01-20-2008 12:54 AM
    Reply to: Message 89 by Hyroglyphx
    01-20-2008 12:32 AM


    Re: What I would think in lieu of ________
    A pair of infertile creature

    interfertile: can succesfully breed with each other.

    Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


    soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
    Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
    Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
    All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
    And so there was only one thing I could do
    Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

    Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
    Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
    If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
    *not an actual doctor
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 89 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-20-2008 12:32 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

      
    Prev1
    ...
    45
    6
    78910Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018