Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-28-2017 8:26 PM
382 online now:
14174dm, Asgara (AdminAsgara), DrJones*, Phat (AdminPhat), Pollux, Porosity (6 members, 376 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: superuniverse
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,377 Year: 16,983/21,208 Month: 2,872/3,593 Week: 339/646 Day: 102/115 Hour: 0/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
6061
62
636465Next
Author Topic:   Why is evolution so controversial?
Taq
Member
Posts: 6651
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 916 of 969 (740673)
11-06-2014 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 915 by zaius137
11-06-2014 2:57 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
Again… (u) is not a percentage. It is “rate” of mutation per generation.

Then we are looking at 10 indels per generation (70 subsitutions per generation). Each indel is 20 bases, on average. 10 indels at 20 bases each would be 200 bases changed plus the 70 from substitutions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 915 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 2:57 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6651
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 917 of 969 (740674)
11-06-2014 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 914 by zaius137
11-06-2014 2:55 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
I understand the papers I cited claim more than 1.5% divergence counting indels.

So does the chimp genome paper if you are counting number of bases instead of number of mutations. The chimp genome paper has 5 million indels covering 90 million bases compared to 35 million substitution mutations.

Are you still claiming they are wrong?

I am claiming that your interpretation of the papers is wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 914 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 2:55 PM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 918 by sfs, posted 11-06-2014 3:55 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 919 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 8:45 PM Taq has responded

  
sfs
Member
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


(1)
Message 918 of 969 (740675)
11-06-2014 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 917 by Taq
11-06-2014 3:40 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
quote:
So does the chimp genome paper if you are counting number of bases instead of number of mutations. The chimp genome paper has 5 million indels covering 90 million bases compared to 35 million substitution mutations.

Amounting to 1.5% of the human sequence being different from the chimp sequence and another 1.5% of the chimp being different from the human. Added to the 1.3% from substitutions, and you get ~4.3% divergence(*). As the paper says, "Insertion and deletion (indel) events are fewer in number than single-nucleotide substitutions, but result in 1.5% of the euchromatic sequence in each species being lineage-specific."

All the studies give similar answers.

(*)No, you really shouldn't measure divergence this way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 917 by Taq, posted 11-06-2014 3:40 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 921 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 10:03 PM sfs has not yet responded

    
zaius137
Member (Idle past 854 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 919 of 969 (740696)
11-06-2014 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 917 by Taq
11-06-2014 3:40 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
quote:
I am claiming that your interpretation of the papers is wrong.

One thing is certain you do not want to count indel divergence as autosomal segment divergence. It is clear now that secular scientists have caught up to the fact that a human chimp divergence of 1.5% is nonsense. At this point I do not even know what you point is. Is it because you think there is not enough indels to count? If that is your point, it is in direct contradiction to my citations (I have at this point provided 6) that implicitly added them to substitution rates. I have tried and failed to correct your perspective of what constitutes a “site” as it relates to mutation.

You have repeatedly mixed up (u) and (k) in the calculation I was using. That is rate and percentage divergence.

I used .8% autosomal divergence in one calculation (even though I suspect it is more) and you still don’t buy it, that was a concession to the evolutionist perspective.

I will, at this point, let you name the additional divergence you think is acceptable. If you claim it is zero, argue with the secular scientists who say that it is more than zero.

Indel inclusion does not violate the neutral model as provided by Kimura’s neutral theory of evolution. It is his calculation for neutral mutation that is the basis of the calculation I used.

Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 917 by Taq, posted 11-06-2014 3:40 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 920 by Coyote, posted 11-06-2014 9:57 PM zaius137 has responded
 Message 925 by Taq, posted 11-06-2014 11:44 PM zaius137 has responded
 Message 931 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-07-2014 10:55 AM zaius137 has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5868
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 920 of 969 (740708)
11-06-2014 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 919 by zaius137
11-06-2014 8:45 PM


Secular scientists????????
You keep mentioning "secular scientists."

Is there any other kind?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 919 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 8:45 PM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 922 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 10:06 PM Coyote has responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 854 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 921 of 969 (740709)
11-06-2014 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 918 by sfs
11-06-2014 3:55 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
quote:
(*)No, you really shouldn't measure divergence this way.

Specifically.. Why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 918 by sfs, posted 11-06-2014 3:55 PM sfs has not yet responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 854 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 922 of 969 (740712)
11-06-2014 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 920 by Coyote
11-06-2014 9:57 PM


Re: Secular scientists????????
quote:
You keep mentioning "secular scientists."
Is there any other kind?

In the spirit of defining the “other white meat”, yes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 920 by Coyote, posted 11-06-2014 9:57 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 923 by Coyote, posted 11-06-2014 10:11 PM zaius137 has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5868
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 923 of 969 (740713)
11-06-2014 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 922 by zaius137
11-06-2014 10:06 PM


Re: Secular scientists????????
quote:
You keep mentioning "secular scientists."
Is there any other kind?

In the spirit of defining the “other white meat”, yes.

In the spirit of defining the "scientific method," no.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 922 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 10:06 PM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 924 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 10:24 PM Coyote has responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 854 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 924 of 969 (740714)
11-06-2014 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 923 by Coyote
11-06-2014 10:11 PM


Re: Secular scientists????????
You mean “To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning” (wiki)

I guess that leaves out the evolutionist by definition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 923 by Coyote, posted 11-06-2014 10:11 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 926 by Coyote, posted 11-07-2014 12:37 AM zaius137 has responded
 Message 932 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-07-2014 10:58 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6651
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 925 of 969 (740716)
11-06-2014 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 919 by zaius137
11-06-2014 8:45 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
One thing is certain you do not want to count indel divergence as autosomal segment divergence.

That's exactly what the authors of the chimp genome paper did.

"Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."
http://www.nature.com/...al/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

It is clear now that secular scientists have caught up to the fact that a human chimp divergence of 1.5% is nonsense.

That is the divergence due to substitutions, and continues to be.

Is it because you think there is not enough indels to count? If that is your point, it is in direct contradiction to my citations (I have at this point provided 6) that implicitly added them to substitution rates.

It is the way that you add them together that is wrong. The authors of the peer reviewed papers do it correctly.

I have tried and failed to correct your perspective of what constitutes a “site” as it relates to mutation.

You have failed because you are wrong. One indel is one mutation. A 5 base indel is 1 mutation, not 5. A sequence with 20 bases has 20 sites where a mutation can occur.

You have repeatedly mixed up (u) and (k) in the calculation I was using. That is rate and percentage divergence.

What are the units for divergence?

I will, at this point, let you name the additional divergence you think is acceptable. If you claim it is zero, argue with the secular scientists who say that it is more than zero.

I have already discussed the mutation rate with you multiple times. If you are going to use the 5% divergence as measured by differences in bases then you need to use a mutation rate that incorporates the number of bases changed per generation. You aren't doing that. The mutation rate needs to be about 250 bases changed per generation. You are using 70.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 919 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 8:45 PM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 927 by zaius137, posted 11-07-2014 3:40 AM Taq has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5868
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 926 of 969 (740720)
11-07-2014 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 924 by zaius137
11-06-2014 10:24 PM


Re: Secular scientists????????
You mean “To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning” (wiki)

I guess that leaves out the evolutionist by definition.

You can believe in magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff.

Me, I'll follow the scientific method.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 924 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 10:24 PM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 928 by zaius137, posted 11-07-2014 3:42 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 854 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 927 of 969 (740723)
11-07-2014 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 925 by Taq
11-06-2014 11:44 PM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
quote:
It is the way that you add them together that is wrong. The authors of the peer reviewed papers do it correctly.

If they are added correctly, then I can use them as autosomal divergence, right.

quote:
I have already discussed the mutation rate with you multiple times. If you are going to use the 5% divergence as measured by differences in bases then you need to use a mutation rate that incorporates the number of bases changed per generation. You aren't doing that. The mutation rate needs to be about 250 bases changed per generation. You are using 70.

I am using 70 because the current measurement is a average of 70 new mutations per generation (mutation rate of 1.1 x 10^-8), a base number change of 250 bases per generation is not reasonable. As I suggested earlier a mutation rate of 250 mutations per site per generation yields a deleterious rate of U = (250 x .017) = 4.25. A “U” of 4.25 is unacceptable. Genome load would exceed 99%.

I do not know how you calculated 250 new mutations per generation without specifying time since divergence (t x 20). You must use the formula I used to derive a mutation rate then calculate the number of mutations needed per generation.

t= number of generations since divergence (Generation =20 years) = 300,000 and 6 million years since divergence.
k= percentage of autosomal sequence divergence Estimated at 5%
Ne= effective size of population ~10^5
(u)=mutation rate to be calculated
u = k/(2t + 4Ne) from http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.full

With a 5% autosomal sequence divergence between a human and chimp you need a mutation rate of ~5 x 10^-8 for 6 million years. That would be 320 new mutations per generation. Impossible. Even 250 new mutations per generation is impossible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 925 by Taq, posted 11-06-2014 11:44 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 929 by sfs, posted 11-07-2014 7:48 AM zaius137 has not yet responded
 Message 937 by Taq, posted 11-07-2014 4:23 PM zaius137 has responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 854 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 928 of 969 (740724)
11-07-2014 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 926 by Coyote
11-07-2014 12:37 AM


Re: Secular scientists????????
You can believe in magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff….

You missed one… EVOLUTION


This message is a reply to:
 Message 926 by Coyote, posted 11-07-2014 12:37 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 930 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-07-2014 9:45 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
sfs
Member
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 929 of 969 (740734)
11-07-2014 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 927 by zaius137
11-07-2014 3:40 AM


quote:

If they are added correctly, then I can use them as autosomal divergence, right.


Quite right. Unfortunately, you are not able to add them correctly. You've been trying for years, and you still can't add them correctly. You've been given trivial examples, and you can't parse them correctly. Perhaps you should find something else to do with your time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 927 by zaius137, posted 11-07-2014 3:40 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11446
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 930 of 969 (740736)
11-07-2014 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 928 by zaius137
11-07-2014 3:42 AM


Re: Secular scientists????????
You can believe in magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff….
You missed one… EVOLUTION


This message is a reply to:
 Message 928 by zaius137, posted 11-07-2014 3:42 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
6061
62
636465Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017