Summations Only

The problem I have with human/chimp diversity is the ability of nature to regularly add effective genes to the genome. I haven't seen any proof of rates of increased genetic complexity to explain modern organisms with lengthy genomes compared to the original bacterial forms.I am a great believer in DNA analysis, I don't believe phylogenetic trees that are based on physical characteristic in fossils are accurate enough to confidently determine ancestry. So I cannot give an answer about the moerotherium, I believe it could be possible. (I do believe in rapid macro-evolution but not on a genetic level.) You are welcome to post evidence for this to back up your statement. I have posted my maths to indicate that currently measured mutation rates are in the general region expected by the Noah story, Y-Adam can certainly fit in with Noah less than 10000 years ago at germline mutation rates of 48 per generation. This goes completely against current estimates of Y-Adam being over 40 000 years ago.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

You are welcome to point out where I got the math wrong.

"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise."
I do believe in some evolutionary processes.I also believe in macroevolution on short time scales, mainly through a few minor mutations and major changes to allele frequencies, and environmental/lifestyle factors.

I replied to your message 53 in my message 59:
EvC Forum: Can the standard "Young Earth Creationist" model be falsified by genetics alone?Apologies for neglecting that thread, I find I get very involved in one discussion and therefore don't jump often between threads. Edited by mindspawn, : Adding link.

I asked if you can prove if mtDNA eve had predecessors. You said you can. could you kindly provide the proof thereof?You say I know the reasons? I have no idea how one could possibly extract the existence of predecessors of mtDNA Eve from DNA analysis.

Another assertion. Care to provide any backing for this?

I think it's a corollary of mountains being the size of hills then - obviously one is linked to the other. (We know this because Noah refers to Hill Ararat.)And naturally, micro-organisms would be the size of atoms - but sadly we've lost the ones with nostrils as they were killed in the flud.

If you read the paper below, you can see that the family that includes mammoth, mastodons, Asian elephants, African Savannah elephants, and African forest elephants has a very similar history to the great ape family, and this takes place over the same time period. They have similar generation times, and their divergence on genomes is similar in quantity and type. It makes no sense that you can see them as evolving from a common ancestor and not see us and the other great apes as doing the same.Genomic DNA Sequences from Mastodon and Woolly Mammoth Reveal Deep Speciation of Forest and Savanna Elephants | PLOS BiologyYou would need groups of all of those 5 species on your crowded Ark.As for new genes, and the increases on genomes, I'm happy to get back to explaining duplication, neofunctionalization, subfunctionalization, and sub-neofunctionalization again, if you want. There's plenty of evidence for it, as I've explained before, for those of us who know how to read history on genomes. Paralogs are everywhere.But that's off topic here. But you're wrong, and YEC is soundly falsified. See Message 60 for the conclusive evidence that backs up my statement. And that's not the only way I can falsify YEC with genetics.

Under evolutionary assumptions:
http://www.globalcommunity.org/wtt/walk_menu/225.html
"Small and nocturnal, the first mammals jump, climb, swing and swim through the dinosaur world. Obliged to inhabit small niches in a world of giants, mammals will discover that their diminutive size opens a proverbial window of opportunity. "The first horse was small:
Sifrhippus, the First Horse, Got Even Tinier as the Planet Heated Up - The New York TimesThe first marsupial was small:
(PDF) A new marsupial from the early Eocene Tingamarra Local Fauna of Murgon, Southeastern Queensland: a prototypical Australian marsupial? | Stephen Wroe - Academia.eduFirst rhinocerous was small:
rhinocerous small - Google SearchThe family of all modern rhinoceros, the Rhinocerotidae, first appeared in the Late Eocene in Eurasia. The earliest members of Rhinocerotidae were smallFirst bears were small:
Bear - Wikipedia
These animals looked very different from today's bears, being small and raccoon-like in overall appearance, and diets perhaps more similar to that of a badgerMost mammals started out small. Check out the elephant, the giraffe, deer etc etc

What would be the mechanism for passing on macroevolutionary changes through mutations if those changes did not occur on a genetic level? I cannot make any sense out of that, and I doubt that you can either.How would you pass on changes in allele frequencies and still allow species to breed true without those changes occurring on a genetic level. Do you postulate some kind of Lamarkian mechanism of inheritance?

But all that is just irrelevant until you can show that those critters were on the ARK.You need to show that the rino that would have been on the Ark was a first rino and not the rinos that actually existed only 4500 years ago.Good luck.But there is one other thing you MUST show and that is the genetic bottleneck at 4500 years ago in all existing horses, rinos, marsupials, humans, bears, elephants, giraffes, deer, humans, etc.

Sure we can discuss it again in another thread. I am actually open to the rare favorable coding gene additions, but I am more concerned about evolutionary timeframes being incorrect, and just for interest sake, the rate of these events within evolutionary timeframes. I replied to message 60 in that thread. And we can deal with other YEC objections in that thread too. (PS I'm not YEC, I believe the earth is old but biology is young)Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Then you should be presenting your evidence for that on the dating thread. I've been waiting for days for you to come up with something other than more "what-ifs" over there.

Well of course you don't foresee any problems because as soon as a problem crops up you have a new ad hoc what-if to cover it. That isn't science. It isn't even good fiction.For every "maybe" that you cite, I'd like to see you suggest an experiment to test whether what might be really is.

OK, the problem is that you wrote: But as you probably know most of the human genome does not lie on a "gene position". Most bases are non-coding DNA --- some of it may still have a function, but it's not genes as such, when scientists say that we have 20,000 genes they're only counting the bits of the DNA that code for proteins. So your introduction of the 20,000 figure is just plain wrong, you're dividing by the wrong thing.