Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-15-2017 1:16 AM
316 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Rrhain, xongsmith (5 members, 311 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,191 Year: 28,797/21,208 Month: 863/1,847 Week: 238/475 Day: 3/82 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
151617Next
Author Topic:   Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1858
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 196 of 252 (816772)
08-11-2017 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by CRR
08-10-2017 7:50 PM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
CRR writes:

So then the human and chimp genomes both contain genes that have no homologue in the other.

Yip. Thats why humans and Chimps and Bonobos and Baboons and Daffodils and Amoebas are different.

I'm still trying to find out what your arguments about non-homologue genes are.

Genes different; different organisms. It's not really difficult.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by CRR, posted 08-10-2017 7:50 PM CRR has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7279
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 197 of 252 (816786)
08-11-2017 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by CRR
08-10-2017 7:50 PM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
CRR writes:

So then the human and chimp genomes both contain genes that have no homologue in the other.
The best evolutionary explanation for this is that the common ancestor species had all of those genes and each lineage has lost a large number of genes since separation.

It depends on the gene. You need to be specific about which gene you are talking about.

Are you counting this gene loss as microevolution or macroevolution?

You tell us. Do you consider the evolution of humans and chimps from a common ancestor to be macroevolution or microevolution? Most creationists I know would count this as macroevolution, which is why I used it in this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by CRR, posted 08-10-2017 7:50 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7279
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 198 of 252 (816787)
08-11-2017 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by CRR
08-11-2017 12:49 AM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
CRR writes:

That's interesting RAZD. Back at Message 182 regarding human genes that had no homologue in the chimp genome Taq said, "The explanation is gene loss in the chimp lineage, but not in the human lineage."

That is the explanation for the differences between the human y chromosome and the chimp y chromosome for the specific genes found at the end of the human y chromosome. I never said that it applies to every single difference between every chromosome.

Also, you are trying to conflate genes with DNA. Humans can have genes without homologues in the chimp genome, but they can still share the same DNA in those same regions. Gene is not a synonym for DNA. Genes are determined by RNA, not just DNA.

Are there genes that have been gained since separation? A list would be good if you can find one.

You already referenced the papers with those lists. Perhaps you should read your own references?

Would gene gain be counted as micro or macroevolution?

Do you think the evolution of humans from a common ancestor shared with chimps is microevolution?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by CRR, posted 08-11-2017 12:49 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by CRR, posted 08-11-2017 5:29 PM Taq has responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 199 of 252 (816824)
08-11-2017 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Taq
08-11-2017 11:00 AM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
Do you think the evolution of humans from a common ancestor shared with chimps is microevolution?

No, because I don't think they evolved from a common ancestor.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Taq, posted 08-11-2017 11:00 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Taq, posted 08-11-2017 6:10 PM CRR has responded
 Message 201 by Coyote, posted 08-11-2017 11:57 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7279
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 200 of 252 (816827)
08-11-2017 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by CRR
08-11-2017 5:29 PM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
CRR writes:

No, because I don't think they evolved from a common ancestor.

If humans did evolve from a common ancestor shared with chimps, would you accept that as an example of macroevolution?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by CRR, posted 08-11-2017 5:29 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by CRR, posted 08-13-2017 2:23 AM Taq has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 201 of 252 (816842)
08-11-2017 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by CRR
08-11-2017 5:29 PM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
No, because I don't think they evolved from a common ancestor.

Ignoring religious beliefs for the moment, from whence did chimps and humans then evolve?


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

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

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

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" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by CRR, posted 08-11-2017 5:29 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 202 of 252 (816889)
08-13-2017 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Taq
08-11-2017 6:10 PM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
If humans did evolve from a common ancestor shared with chimps, would you accept that as an example of macroevolution?

That would depend on what changes were required to produce the differences and how you define micro/macro evolution. As I've said before IF the common ancestor had all the human genes that chimps lack (and vice versa) and IF you define genetic loss as microevolution THEN it could be entirely microevolution.

This is why I originally said that you had arranged a "no win" challenge since you can make any assumptions you want and your definition of "microevolution" is so broad that such a scenario is permissible. From Message 1

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.


Make the right assumptions about the common ancestor and allow enough deletions and you can explain anything!

Of more interest would be to show that ALL genetic differences can be produced from a common ancestor having only genes that are orthologous within the great apes, and ensuring that all required changes produce no decrease in fitness and are fixed within the required time frame (allow 10 million years).

btw Dr Adequate in another thread showed that genetic drift could have caused a substantial amount of difference in a time period of ~7 million years. That could get you off to a good start.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Taq, posted 08-11-2017 6:10 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Taq, posted 08-14-2017 11:15 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 204 by Percy, posted 08-15-2017 7:23 AM CRR has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7279
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 203 of 252 (816974)
08-14-2017 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by CRR
08-13-2017 2:23 AM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
CRR writes:

That would depend on what changes were required to produce the differences and how you define micro/macro evolution.

Can you point to a difference between the chimp and human genomes that could not be produced by known processes of mutagenesis? After all, this was the challenge given out in the opening post. It seems that we have come full circle, and you continue to avoid the question at hand.

As I've said before IF the common ancestor had all the human genes that chimps lack (and vice versa) and IF you define genetic loss as microevolution THEN it could be entirely microevolution.

You already cited a reference that new genes evolved in the human and chimp lineages. Did you forget that already?

This is why I originally said that you had arranged a "no win" challenge since you can make any assumptions you want and your definition of "microevolution" is so broad that such a scenario is permissible.

No, that is what you do. You are projecting.

I define macroevolution as the divergence of two lineages on separate evolutionary trajectories. This means that their genomes will diverge over time, and that is exactly what we have with chimps and humans.

Make the right assumptions about the common ancestor and allow enough deletions and you can explain anything!

Gene deletion is detected by the presence of the gene in the rest of the phylogeny. I already showed you that.

Of more interest would be to show that ALL genetic differences can be produced from a common ancestor having only genes that are orthologous within the great apes, and ensuring that all required changes produce no decrease in fitness and are fixed within the required time frame (allow 10 million years).

Turning the challenge around on your opponents without ever addressing the challenge is not a valid argument. The challenge in the opening post still stands.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by CRR, posted 08-13-2017 2:23 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16316
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 204 of 252 (817032)
08-15-2017 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by CRR
08-13-2017 2:23 AM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
CRR writes:

That would depend on what changes were required to produce the differences and how you define micro/macro evolution....
...
This is why I originally said that you had arranged a "no win" challenge since you can make any assumptions you want and your definition of "microevolution" is so broad that such a scenario is permissible. From Message 1:

Taq writes:

...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.

From the above it can be seen that your statement that Taq defined microevolution broadly is contradicted by his very words that you quote, which describe a rather narrow definition.

These are the definitions of micro and macroevolution you offered in Message 183:

microevolution = changes in gene frequencies and trait distributions that occur within populations and species
macroevolution = large evolutionary change, usually in morphology, typically refers to evolution of differences among populations that would warrant their plaecment in different genera or higher-level taxa

(from the flashcard website http://www.cram.com/flashcards/evolution-2013900)

Yours and Taq's definitions seem well within the realm of reconciliation. I continue to encourage you to reach agreement on the definitions.

Taq writes:

If humans did evolve from a common ancestor shared with chimps, would you accept that as an example of macroevolution?

That would depend on what changes were required to produce the differences and how you define micro/macro evolution. As I've said before IF the common ancestor had all the human genes that chimps lack (and vice versa) and IF you define genetic loss as microevolution THEN it could be entirely microevolution.

No one's defining microevolution as genetic loss, and no one's calling human/chimp evolution from a common ancestor microevolution. Chimps have genes humans don't have, and humans have genes chimps don't have. That would seem the very definition of the accumulation of microevolutionary changes into macroevolution.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by CRR, posted 08-13-2017 2:23 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by CRR, posted 08-16-2017 7:34 AM Percy has responded

    
CRR
Member
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 205 of 252 (817255)
08-16-2017 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Percy
08-15-2017 7:23 AM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
These are the definitions of micro and macroevolution you offered in Message 183:

What I was trying to point out is that there is no single agreed definition for micro/macroevolution.

I said I preferred Durston's definition and gave the definitions from the flashcard website as another comparison. The point is that the definitions you quoted from Wikipedia are not universally agreed. Both the definitions I gave disagreed with your quoted definition for macroevolution.

In message 1 Taq is trying to define microevolution as a single mutation event including almost any possible change, including an insertion of any size. The de novo appearance of a fully functional orphan gene as a single insertion would therefore be counted as microevolution. There are no limits as to fitness, waiting time, or any other realistic constraint. Basically Taq allows himself a magic wand to accomplish any imaginable change in an arbitrary time.

As I said, it's a no win challenge and I'm not going to play.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Percy, posted 08-15-2017 7:23 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 08-16-2017 10:10 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 207 by Taq, posted 08-16-2017 11:13 AM CRR has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16316
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 206 of 252 (817268)
08-16-2017 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by CRR
08-16-2017 7:34 AM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
CRR writes:

What I was trying to point out is that there is no single agreed definition for micro/macroevolution.

All you've done is demonstrated a fact of life, that different people use different words and ways to define the same things.

Both the definitions I gave disagreed with your quoted definition for macroevolution.

Not in any substantive way. If you think there are meaningful disagreements then point them out.

In message 1 Taq is trying to define microevolution as a single mutation event including almost any possible change, including an insertion of any size. The de novo appearance of a fully functional orphan gene as a single insertion would therefore be counted as microevolution.

Technically yes it would, but that's an impossibly unlikely event.

Basically Taq allows himself a magic wand to accomplish any imaginable change in an arbitrary time.

Taq has never said anything like this.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by CRR, posted 08-16-2017 7:34 AM CRR has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7279
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 207 of 252 (817279)
08-16-2017 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by CRR
08-16-2017 7:34 AM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
CRR writes:

In message 1 Taq is trying to define microevolution as a single mutation event including almost any possible change, including an insertion of any size.

I am defining macroevolution as the differences between humans and chimps. Do you agree or disagree that the differences between humans and chimps constitutes macroevolution? Do you think humans and chimps are in the same created kind and share a common ancestor?

I am trying to find an example of macroevolution that we can both agree to so we don't quibble about definitions. If you want, we can use another primate genome that you think it better represents macroevolution if chimps and humans share a common ancestor in your version of creationism.

The de novo appearance of a fully functional orphan gene as a single insertion would therefore be counted as microevolution.

The whole point is that microevolutionary events accumulate to produce macroevolution, just as walking a mile is the accumulation of single steps.

There are no limits as to fitness, waiting time, or any other realistic constraint. Basically Taq allows himself a magic wand to accomplish any imaginable change in an arbitrary time.

You haven't shown that the differences between the human and chimp genomes violates any limits. Remember, the challenge is being given to you to show that microevolution can not produce the differences seen between the human and chimp genomes. Bare assertions aren't going to cut it.

Also, we can directly observe all of these types of mutations occurring in living species, so it is hardly magic. Magic is what you believe in. You think a supernatural deity magically poofed species into being. It seems that you are trying to accuse others of holding beliefs that you already hold. We call this "projection".

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by CRR, posted 08-16-2017 7:34 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by CRR, posted 08-16-2017 6:37 PM Taq has responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 208 of 252 (817343)
08-16-2017 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Taq
08-16-2017 11:13 AM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
I am defining macroevolution as the differences between humans and chimps.

Since it is only a hypothesis that humans and chimps developed from a common ancestor your definition is circular reasoning.
I am defining macroevolution as a gain of a statistically significant amount of genetic information.

Remind me, how do you explain that every human/chimp chromosome has genes that are non-homologous between humans and chimps?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Taq, posted 08-16-2017 11:13 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Percy, posted 08-17-2017 7:35 AM CRR has responded
 Message 210 by Taq, posted 08-17-2017 11:06 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 213 by Meddle, posted 08-21-2017 9:07 AM CRR has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16316
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 209 of 252 (817364)
08-17-2017 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by CRR
08-16-2017 6:37 PM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
CRR writes:

I am defining macroevolution as a gain of a statistically significant amount of genetic information.

Macroevolution should constitute gains, losses and changes of genetic information.

What do you consider a "statistically significant amount of genetic information"? Chimp and human genomes are percentagely similar in the high 90's.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by CRR, posted 08-16-2017 6:37 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by CRR, posted 08-18-2017 6:12 PM Percy has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7279
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 210 of 252 (817398)
08-17-2017 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by CRR
08-16-2017 6:37 PM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
CRR writes:

Since it is only a hypothesis that humans and chimps developed from a common ancestor your definition is circular reasoning.

It is the same definition you are using. You said that macroevolution is the amount of change needed to produce a new "kind". Humans and chimps are in different kinds, according to your own posts.

I am defining macroevolution as a gain of a statistically significant amount of genetic information.

If the differences between the chimp and human genomes do not constitute "a gain of a statistically significant amount of genetic information" then you don't need a significant gain in order to produce macroevolution.

If the differences between the chimp and human genomes do constitute a significant gain, then those differences are the beneficial mutations that occurred through microevolution that accumulated to the point where they produced macroevolution.

Your choice.

Remind me, how do you explain that every human/chimp chromosome has genes that are non-homologous between humans and chimps?

A combination of gene loss, gene duplication, and evolution of transcription binding sites upstream of DNA that was previously not transcribed. Here is a review article if you want to read more:

quote:

Nat Rev Genet. 2011 Aug 31;12(10):692-702.

The evolutionary origin of orphan genes.

Tautz D1, Domazet-Lošo T.

Abstract

Gene evolution has long been thought to be primarily driven by duplication and rearrangement mechanisms. However, every evolutionary lineage harbours orphan genes that lack homologues in other lineages and whose evolutionary origin is only poorly understood. Orphan genes might arise from duplication and rearrangement processes followed by fast divergence; however, de novo evolution out of non-coding genomic regions is emerging as an important additional mechanism. This process appears to provide raw material continuously for the evolution of new gene functions, which can become relevant for lineage-specific adaptations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21878963


Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by CRR, posted 08-16-2017 6:37 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
151617Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017