Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 224 of 252 (818555)
08-30-2017 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by CRR
08-30-2017 12:11 AM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
CRR writes:
The differences between the human and chimp genomes constitute a "statistically significant difference in functional information".
Then all evolution needs to produce is a difference in order to produce macroevolution. It doesn't need to produce an increase as you define it.
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".
Where did we say that there was a loss of a large number? You are putting words in our mouth.
Also, you are focusing just on the losses. You are ignoring all of the other changes in each genome.
Since this requires no statistically significant increase in functional information it would be microevolution.
Humans evolving from an ape-like ancestor is microevolution?
We could also compare the human genome with the lamprey genome. We will also see that there has been loss in both the human and lamprey lineages that lead away from that common ancestor. Does this mean that humans evolving from a fish-like ancestor is microevolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by CRR, posted 08-30-2017 12:11 AM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 225 of 252 (818556)
08-30-2017 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by CRR
08-30-2017 12:04 AM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
CRR writes:
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.
All of those species would also have lineage specific genes not found in the common ancestor. You are forgetting those. Every lineage is going to have a combination of gene gain and gene loss. It's called evolution.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by CRR, posted 08-30-2017 12:04 AM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 229 of 252 (819052)
09-05-2017 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by CRR
09-04-2017 6:02 PM


Re: Genetic Differences
CRR writes:
So Percy and Taq argued that non-homologous genes between humans and chimps was due to gene loss in each.
That's false. I offered many different explanations, from gene loss to de novo evolution of new genes. I never said that every single non-homologous gene between humans and chimps was due to gene loss.
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?
A single substitution mutation can produce a new gene promoter and lead to the transcription of previously non-coding region of DNA. You don't need high mutation rates for the production of new genes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by CRR, posted 09-04-2017 6:02 PM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by CRR, posted 09-07-2017 5:21 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 232 of 252 (819155)
09-07-2017 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by CRR
09-07-2017 5:21 AM


Re: Genetic Differences
CRR writes:
From Percy in Message 223
What are you referring to specifically?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by CRR, posted 09-07-2017 5:21 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by CRR, posted 09-07-2017 5:34 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 234 of 252 (819185)
09-07-2017 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by CRR
09-07-2017 5:34 PM


Re: Genetic Differences
That chart isn't measuring mutation rates, merely the rate of gene loss and gain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by CRR, posted 09-07-2017 5:34 PM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by CRR, posted 09-07-2017 6:15 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 238 of 252 (819268)
09-08-2017 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by CRR
09-07-2017 6:15 PM


Re: Genetic Differences
CRR writes:
(a) shows the numbers of losses and gains.
(b) shows the rates
Shows the rates of what? Gene loss/gain? Rate of duplication events? Indel rates? Substitution rates? Per nucleotide mutation rate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by CRR, posted 09-07-2017 6:15 PM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 247 of 252 (819456)
09-11-2017 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by CRR
09-11-2017 7:44 AM


Re: Genetic Differences
CRR writes:
If 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).
The grand question is what does all of this have to do with the topic in the opening post?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by CRR, posted 09-11-2017 7:44 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by herebedragons, posted 09-11-2017 1:47 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 249 by CRR, posted 09-11-2017 5:47 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 252 of 252 (819529)
09-12-2017 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by CRR
09-11-2017 5:47 PM


Re: Genetic Differences
CRR writes:
I've already said I'm not interested in answering the original topic because it is set up as a no win proposition.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by CRR, posted 09-11-2017 5:47 PM CRR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024