|
QuickSearch
|
| PaulK (1 member, 202 visitors)
| ||||||
Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
DeepaManjusha | |||||||
|
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 7421 Joined: Member Rating: 2.4 |
For creationists who claim that microevolution and macroevolution are two different things, here is a simple challenge: Show us a single genetic difference between the human and chimp genome that could not have been produced by known microevolutionary processes in either the chimp or human lineages. Just for clarity, I am defining a microevolutionary change as a single mutational event (e.g. base substitution, insertion, deletion, transposon insertion, retroviral insertion, or genetic recombination) that is passed on to descendants. As an example, here is a comparison of portion of the human HNF1 homeobox A gene and the homologous chimp gene: Query 1 GGCCCTGTGGCAGCCGAGCCATGGTTTCTAAACTGAGCCAGCTGCAGACGGAGCTCCTGG 60 The human sequence is on top, and the chimp sequence is on the bottom. The "|" symbols indicate where the two sequences are the same. As you can see, there are two base substitutions in the middle row. Can any creationist give us a single reason why two microevolutionary events could not produce those two base differences? Can creationists point to any different in the chimp and human genomes that could not be produced microevolution? To admin: Would prefer placement in the Biological Evolution forum. Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member Posts: 19472 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
But that didn't produce a new 'kind' ... oh wait ... by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 7421 Joined: Member Rating: 2.4
|
As it turns out, the first mutation in the opening post is specific to the chimp lineage, and the second mutation is specific to the human lineage (using BLASTn).
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member Posts: 19472 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Nicely done.
Are you sure about those time stamps at the bottom? I thought human/chimp split was ~10MYA, and this puts the split square in the lap of Ardipithecus ramidus and Ardipithecus kadabba: quote: and it puts the gorilla split in the lap of Sahelanthropus tchadensis: quote: Exciting times. Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 7421 Joined: Member Rating: 2.4 |
A quick scan of a Google Scholar search seems to show that recent papers are still using divergence times of around 4-6 million years, with some papers going even as high as 8 MYA. I would suspect that 10 MYA would be an outlier with respect to the consensus. As to Ardipithecus, it may push the common ancestor more towards the 6 MYA side of the equation than the 4 MYA.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member Posts: 19472 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Or it is just old. I remember speculating when Sahelanthropus tchadensis was found that it could be the common ancestor with chimps.
Or it (or a close relative) is the common ancestor. We know already that it is intermediate in form and that "Behavioral analysis showed that Ardipithecus could be very similar to chimpanzees, indicating that the early human ancestors were very chimpanzee-like in behaviour.[1]" See The story of Bones and Dogs and Humans: quote: The major difference in appearance I see being the hip bones, but not out of a reasonable realm for evolution. There are some missing bones for the Ardi reconstruction, so new finds will be needed to fill in that gap in our knowledge. Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 7421 Joined: Member Rating: 2.4
|
Could be. For the time being, however, the actual dates are somewhat irrelevant. What matters for the gorilla/chimp/human triad is that the chimp/human lineage diverged from the gorilla lineage followed by humans and chimps diverging into their own lineages. This is what allows us to model the common ancestral genome and assign mutations to either the human or chimp lineage. Of course, incomplete lineage sorting can cause some inconsistencies, but for now we are going to go with a simple model.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Why not first start a thread on the definitions and differences between microevolution and macroevolution?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member Posts: 19472 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Several threads on this issue, see MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? for example. It starts with creationist misinformed definitions. Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 7421 Joined: Member Rating: 2.4
|
The bounds are the chimp and human genomes. What I am asking is if humans and chimps share a common ancestor, which genetic differences between them are you saying couldn't be produced by the observed mechanisms of mutagenesis. mutagenesis = production of mutations The major types of mutations are substitutions, insertions, deletions, transposon or retroviral insertion, and genetic recombination. A google search for those terms should give you all the definitions and descriptions that you need. If you have questions, please ask. Microevolution occurs when a single mutation is passed on to subsequent generations and either increases or decreases in frequency over multiple generations. Macroevolution occurs when two separate populations do not freely interbreed causing different microevolutionary events to accumulate in each of populations. This causes the populations to become different from one another over time, as is the case for humans and chimps. Creationists claim that microevolutionary events can not accumulate to the point where they produce the genetic differences seen between separate species. I am using the human and chimp genomes as our specific example, and challenging creationists to point to a single genetic difference between the chimp and human genomes that could not be produced by a microevolutionary event. They must also explain what would stop mutations from accumulating over time since every generation is born with new mutations.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aristotle Junior Member (Idle past 216 days) Posts: 16 Joined: |
Do you truly think it fair expecting creationists to prove the changes were not the result of mutations, when you can't prove that they were? That asked, the chances of the mutations required between human and primate, occurring in the right gene and often enough in the population to change the genome of the entire species, are next to naught. By themselves, random base substitutions, and deletions, resulting in beneficial changes to the organism, do not occur frequently enough. When the assumption was made in the 1930s that point mutations could be the cause of an organism's progress, they could not properly calculate the chances of that happening. We can forgive them, for this assumption. We now know how tiny the odds are, and so can not be forgiven for making the same mistake. As for genetic insertions and recombinations, while occurring fairly often, aren't random processes like mutations, but are functions inherent in the genome. Doctor Shapiro states: "In the pre-DNA era, students were all taught that genetic change is random and accidental. Because the molecular details were inaccessible, this was the As his article describes, genetic recombination is not at all random: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1743647 Regards, aristotle Edited by aristotle, : No reason given. "I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 5566 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
We don't expect creationists to be able to prove anything - our expections are very, very low based on prior observation. But yes, if you could show that mutations do not contribute positively to the evolutionary process by using actual research - and not simply quote mining - that would be a very valuable addition to science. Btw, it's always useful to know with a newbie creationist, how old do you think the earth is? Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member Posts: 19472 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
That's not quite what he asked in Message 1. He actually asked:
eg - compare the genomes and show which differences could not occur through mutations of the type observed in organisms today. Do you see the difference?
Do you agree that domestic dogs and cats and cows and sheep show a wide variety of traits and sizes to the point where some dogs are remarkably different from other dogs? That's a lot of genetic changes and a fair proportion of them are documented by historical observation in recent (geoplogical) years. If we compared the skeletons of those dogs to one another, would we see more or less variation than see here:
Inquiring minds want to know. Enjoy
by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aristotle Junior Member (Idle past 216 days) Posts: 16 Joined:
|
So posting one quote is 'quote mining'?! Okay then Btw, the quote was not about mutations, it was about recombinations Again, I ask you how you can ask me to show that mutations were not the cause of our evolution, when you can't prove that they did? I never asked you to prove that the mutations evolved us, you chose to be an Evolutionist, but then at least have the courtesy to try and prove your own assumptions, instead of just expecting others to disprove them.
Again you pigeonhole me as a creationist, it shows your extremely narrow view. I don't know how old the earth is, and I'm certainly not as arrogant as evolutionists to think that I know how life was created. Regards, aristotle "I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018