The "Logic" of the creationist....

John Paul writes on the Baptist Board:

quote:

---

John Paul:
It was easy to substantiate Walter’s assumptions on language, speech and upright posture. Our current knowledge pertaining to those topics show his assumptions are good (under the evolutionary scenario). That is what I found from Internet searches and have provided links to. No one knows how, when or why these adaptations came to be. All we have is speculation based upon the assumption they did. Hopefully in the foreseeable future we will have such an understanding of genomes that we will be able to make the determination if in fact changes to the DNA can effect the changes required by the ToE.
I have yet to see anything posted, nor have I found anything via the Internet, that would give us any reason to doubt those assumptions. If someone knows of such information please post it.

---

Here are the links Joe provided: Missing Link | Answers in Genesis Human/chimp DNA similarity: Evidence for evolutionary relationship?
by Don Batten
First published in:
Creation Ex Nihilo 19(1):21—22
December 1996—February 1997http://www.infres.enst.fr/confs/evolang/actes/_actes24.htmlWhy linguists and anthropologists should be interested
in the aquatic ape theory for the origin of speech.
Karl DillerAnd | Academic Technology for FASPsychology 1357: Evolution of Language Instructor: W. Tecumseh FitchBatten’s article is riddled with errors and refers to ReMine’s book — a circular argument is Joe ever presented one.
Batten engages in equivocation, some misrepresentation, question begging — the works. But nowhere does he discuss adaptive mutations, except in reference to ReMine’s book (the veracity of which is in question). And, of course, he, like Fred Williams, equates the total number of bp differences between chimps and humans with the ‘Haldane limit’ of 1667The Aquatic Ape theory page is interesting, but it too, does not once mention anything about numbers of mutations.
If anything, that could be used as evidence AGAINST ReMine’s premise, for it discusses preadaptations — a preadaptation would, by definition, remove the necessity for the 1667 to account for it! Did Joe Gallien even READ his links?The third link Joe provides purporting to support ReMine’s claims is a syllabus outline for a class on the evolution of language.
It, too, says nothing of the numbers of mutations required. Again, Did Joe even read these links?Or did he just punch in some words in Google and link to whatever came up?Conclusion: Joe Gallien provides absolutely ZERO support for ReMine’s claims, contrary to Joe’s assertion.Strike one!

quote:

---

Choosing to play the numbers game does not equal the premise I was trying to defend Walter’s argument pertaining to Haldane’s Dilemma. Even Walter can see it doesn’t.

​

You don’t get to choose the mutations. In this method the criterion for selection is a long-range goal when in direct contrast the criterion for natural selection must be short-range. Even when something looks good on paper there still comes a time when you must consider if it is indicative of reality. I would concede your falsification to be valid only if reality was an intelligently guided designed process. That is the only way I see 1667 mutations as being enough- if it was meant to and had no other choice. But then again in that scenario Haldane’s Dilemma wouldn’t be.

---

Strike two!Faulty logic. Looking at an event that already happened, we have no choice but to choose the adaptive changes that DID occur in order to assess them! What the creationist is doing here is setting up a classic win-win scenario, as indicated by his illogical third from last sentence.Analogy:Forrest runs from NYC to Seattle. Forrest kept a diary in which he recorded his route, and TV crews interviewed him along the way, so there is verification. Upon arrival in Seattle, there is a group opposed to Forrest — and watching TV - who claim that Forrest could not possibly have run form NYC. They say this because there is no way to know which route he took. They explain that if he went this way, he would end up in Mexico. If he went that way, he would end up in Maine. But Forrest says Here is my diary — I wrote the way I took.Well, says one of the Opposers, Anyone can stand here in Seattle and conjure up the route one took. That doesn’t mean that is the way you did go. You can’t pick your route after you ran it!Strike two is sufficient You’re OUT!

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
SLP:
It, too, says nothing of the numbers of mutations required.

​

John Paul:
The links I posted were NOT supposed to discuss mutations. The context of the discussion was whether or not the alleged ancestor (10 million years ago) had any of the adaptations observed only in modern humans- language, speech & upright posture.

---

Then I have to wonder why they were presented as support for ReMine's claims re: 1667 fixed beneficial mutations... After all, ReMine's claims about posture and such are all premised on his unfounded and baseless assumption that 1667 fbms is too few...Thanks, TC....Oh - and who said anything about 'choosing' the mutations? More of that 20/20 hindsight logic from Joey? The ones that account for human evolution form an ape-like ancestor are the ones that are presumed to have occurred. We are 'choosing' the ones that happened.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 08-12-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear JP,

​

You state:
"It, too, says nothing of the numbers of mutations required."

​

Actually it just depends on the gene or DNA region of the primates one studies. There are genes that are (almost) identical between chimp and human, but there are also genes that are very, very distinct (indicating a directed mechanism). If you have a careful look at the chromosomes and DNA sequences of both species it is highly questionable whether a random mechanism is involved. One might as well assume creation.

​

Peter

---

Actually, n o it doesn't. Perhaps you can provide us with some examples of what you speak.
What you see as a 'directed mechanism' those with experience see as the result of either selection of of the physicochemical properties of the DNA sequence in question. More undue extrapolations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Would not then a more accurate topic be 'The "Logic" of a creationist....'? To be less general of course.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear SLPx,

​

I will look into my weird-stuff-literature and I will let you know what gene I referred to (it was a very recent Nature or Science article). Next, we can calculate a bit on it and find out what mechanism is involved. I go for a non-random/directed mechanism. I presume you go for randomness and selection.

​

best wishes,
Peter

---

I will "go for" what the data indicates.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
SLP:
It, too, says nothing of the numbers of mutations required.

​

John Paul:
The links I posted were NOT supposed to discuss mutations. The context of the discussion was whether or not the alleged ancestor (10 million years ago) had any of the adaptations observed only in modern humans- language, speech & upright posture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott:
Then I have to wonder why they were presented as support for ReMine's claims re: 1667 fixed beneficial mutations... After all, ReMine's claims about posture and such are all premised on his unfounded and baseless assumption that 1667 fbms is too few...

​

John Paul:
What is your problem? Like I said the ONLY thing those articles were supposed to show is that our alleged primitive ancestor did NOT have the adaptations ReMine stated would have to come about in the time frame given.

---

And? For one, they don't really do that, either. How does ReMine know how many mutations were required to account for those adaptations? If he doesn't know (and he doesn't), then he has no rational or logical basis to claim that these adaptations - even if arising de novo, are too much to be accounted for (assuming - and I know how you hate assumptions - that ReMine's numbers are correct to begin with).To borrow one of your new pet phrases - What is your objective test for this belief? Better yet, what is your evidence?

quote:

---

Scott:
Oh - and who said anything about 'choosing' the mutations?

​

John Paul:
You don’t get to choose the mutations.

---

AGAIN, who said anything about choosing mutations? If one looks back an event and discusses the probabilities and events surrounding the occurrance, would you warn them that they cannot choose what already happened?

quote:

---

In this method the criterion for selection is a long-range goal when in direct contrast the criterion for natural selection must be short-range.

---

What a bizarre statment! What 'method' are you talking about? There is no goal. Do you even have a beginner's grasp of evolutionary theory, or do you just blurt stuff out in an ad hoc fashion to suit your needs? Do you understand anything about the cumulative nature of evolution?

quote:

---

If we have millions of base pairs that are different, less than 2000 key genes, and some 225,000 coding positions that are different, that would tell me that more mutations took place than 1667. That said the ONLY way to get a human from some primitive ancestor in 1667 mutations would be to choose them.

---

Whaaa? Does ANYBODY here follow this supposed logic? Amazing - let me try, hopelessly, I am sure, to break this down.The 1667 number stems from an application of a mathematical model to the evolution of humans from an unknown ancestor. The model has several constraints that make it inapplicable to many, probably most real-world populations (such as a constant population size - a growing population size, which is more realistic, negates the speed limit to a large extent).
As YOU claim, the numbers seem to be higher than that. These results are form DNA sequence analysis. Again, this is in contrast to a mathematical model.The creationist chooses to reject actual data in favor of a largely inapplicable mathematical model, for the obvious reasons.There is no need to 'choose' anything in this topic, any more than there is a need ot 'choose' the events that have taken place in one's life as one reminisces.You should probably stop reading ReMine. He pollutes even the brightest [sic] creationist mind...

quote:

---

And by assuming common descent we are assuming that mutations can do the trick. Any evidence to support that assumption?

---

Yes.Genomics 2002 May;79(5):657-62Search for genes positively selected during primate evolution by 5'-end-sequence screening of cynomolgus monkey cDNAs.Osada N, Kusuda J, Hirata M, Tanuma R, Hida M, Sugano S, Hirai M, Hashimoto K.Division of Genetic Resources, National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Tokyo, Japan.osada@nih.go.jpIt is possible to assess positive selection by using the ratio of K(a) (nonsynonymous substitutions per plausible nonsynonymous sites) to K(s) (synonymous substitutions per plausible synonymous sites). We have searched candidate genes positively selected during primate evolution by using 5'-end sequences of 21,302 clones derived from cynomolgus monkey (Macaca fascicularis) brain cDNA libraries. Among these candidates, 10 genes that had not been shown by previous studies to undergo positive selection exhibited a K(a)/K(s) ratio > 1. Of the 10 candidate genes we found, 5 were included in the mitochondrial respiratory enzyme complexes, suggesting that these nuclear-encoded genes coevolved with mitochondrial-encoded genes, which have high mutation rates. The products of other candidate genes consisted of a cell-surface protein, a member of the lipocalin family, a nuclear transcription factor, and hypothetical proteins.That is, mutations provide variation upon whihc selection acts.Let me guess - this is not exactly precisely what you had in mind, so it does not count. Or there is no production of a new limb or something, so it doesn't count. or some such nonsense.What, again, are your objective tests for divine creation?What are your objective tests for in-kind variation and no more?What is your evidence for anything you believe in?[This message has been edited by SLPx, 08-16-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fedmahn Kassad:
"...even a tiny number of DNA mutations -- can lead to hugely important physical differences."FK[/B][/QUOTE]Silly FK - we cannot CHOOSE the mutations after the fact!

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Q:
BTW: Thanks for providing another example that refutes Tranquility Base's contention about the impossibility of novel gene evolution.

​

John Paul:
Taken in context Creationists state that is impossible only in the random mutation scenario. Directed mutations- by the designed genome's built-in ability to sense and react to environmental pressures- refutes the ToE. Actually it wouldn't. The ToE would just be re-written to accomodate directed mutations.

​

---

What is your evidence for the occurrance of 'directed mutations'?What is your evidence that these mutations occur in multicellular eukaryotes?What is your evidence that the 'information' already exists in the genomes?What are your objective tests for these hypotheses? Keep in mind - phenotypic variation within species is not evidence for directed mutations.Also, keep in mind that any objective test will need to have sequenced the genes in question in the origanisms prior to and after the application of phenotype altering stresses.

Oh - one other thing. "Rewriting" a theory to accommodate new evidence is the hallmark of real science. Refusing to alter one's foundatinal premises (e.g., special creation of original kinds as is) regardless of what evidence indicates is quite antiscience, and quite irrational.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[B]dear SLPx,The article I refered to can be found in:
Nature 2001 Oct 4;413(6855),p514-9.Let's have a carefull look at this gene family and whether a random non-directed mechanism can hold.Positive selection of a gene family during the emergence of humans and African apes, by johnson ME et al.Gene duplication followed by adaptive evolution is one of the primary forces for the emergence of new gene function. Here we describe the recent proliferation, transposition and selection of a 20-kilobase (kb) duplicated segment throughout 15 Mb of the short arm of human chromosome 16. The dispersal of this segment was accompanied by considerable variation in chromosomal-map location and copy number among hominoid species. In humans, we identified a gene family (morpheus) within the duplicated segment. ..Moreover, some genes emerge and evolve very rapidly, generating copies that bear little similarity to their ancestral precursors. Consequently, a small fraction of human genes may not possess discernible orthologues within the genomes of model organisms.For your information:
PMID: 11586358 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]I recommend anyone who wants to participate in the discussion to read the article very carefully. I will soon send in my comments that demontrate where it clashes with NDT.For now, focus your attention to the latter two sentences of the abstract. Will this paper provide a cover for future genes that will not be found in the great apes, but will be present in the human genome?Best wishes,Peter [B][/QUOTE]Can't wait to see your analysis. I suggest you read up on genomics before posting them, however.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
The goal would be humans and chimps from a common ancestor. That much should have been obvious. This method is akin to Dawkins' "weasel" program, which he admits isn't indicative of reality. It's a shame you can't see that.

---

Why is that the 'goal'? How do you know that this was goal? Whose goal was it? What is your evidence that there was a goal, and that something had it?
I don't think you even know what you are arguing for/against any more...

quote:

---

Thanks to the article you posted about the FOXP2 gene we now know Walter's assumption about speech & language are very good. And if you can't see how the links I gave show that Walter's assumptions are good just tells me nothing would be good enough for you. I am sure you will try to spin out of the FOXP2 evidence that supports his assumption.

---

Well, gee - I must be stupid because I don't see how a course syllabus or a laughably inept hatchet job by an AiG front man or a page on the nutty aquatic ape theory has anything to do with 1667 mutations being too few.It appears that you think that because an ancestor mught not have been full-time bipedal or could not sing an aria that therefore Wally Kuckoo's unsupported claims are really true.How about supplying some logical defense of that postion? AGAIN, none of the links said anything about how many mutations are 'required.' The link I posted posits only a few mutations may have been required to allow for greater muscle control - what other effects they have I don't know. Of course, you don't either. That some say other genes are involved is a given.
Maybe 100 other mutations are required to get articulate speech capability from an ancestor(doubtful).Maybe it takes 500 to get full bipedality (highly doubtful).Maybe it takes another 500 to get the brain development required (doubtful).That leaves only a few outward phenotypic alterations.Let's see your list.Surely. Wally Kuckoo must have a list of the exact number of mutations required to account for specific phenotypic changes.I mean, not knowing that and claiming - asserting over and over ad nauseum - that some number is too few is just plain idiotic.

quote:

---

Also what you & Robert fail to realize is that if we use the chimp/ human comparison method that would bring the total number of possible beneficial mutations from 1667 in 10 million years down to 833 in 5 million or 1167 in 7 million (the alleged chimp/ human split coming in at 5-7 million years ago)

---

Wow. Thanks so much for clarifying that for me. Maybe you can also provide the objective tests showing that those numbers have merit, can be applied to real-world populations, and specifically, to Primate populations. I would also like to see the data for these tests. I would also like to see how, exactly, it was determined that extinct populations met these criteria.And, mnost importantly, I would like to see the data and objective tests for the notions regarding the numbers of mutations required to exact certain phenotypic changes.

quote:

---

Then you would have to show that the "key" genes (1045 minimum) only took 1 mutation to make the changes required and that no other beneficial mutations outside of these key genes, remembering there are 222500 other coding positions that are different.

---

"I" have to do that? You mean that now evolutionists have to PROVE that a creationists assertion is true?Wow...
Creationists get wackier by the minute...

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Rationalist:
And what about all of the other ambient mutations in the genome. Are we to believe that of all of the mutations that are introduced into the gene pool of a species, only one at a time can become fixed?

​

John Paul:
A mutation, any mutation, has a better chance of getting lost in a population than it does becoming fixed. As we know most mutations are either harmful or neutral, why would these mutations even be selected? Beneficial is a relative word as there is no way to predict what would be selected for at any point in time. What may be beneficial for one generation may not be beneficial for future generations.

---

A regular genetics wizard in our midst!Read:Solutions to the Cost-of-Selection Dilemma.
Grant and Flake. 1974. PNAS 71(10)3863-3865This one ios good because it falsifies several of ReMine's claims. No wonder he didn't cite it in his pulp fiction...The cost of selection and the imprecvision of adaptation. 1977. Darlington. PNAS 74(4) 1647-1651.
This one gives 6 different scenarios in which real populations can exceed Haldane's 'limit'. Also not cited in ReMine's book.There are others, but until the creationist understands that Haldane's model - the 'dilemma' - isn't what they make it out to be, they are just making moot points.

quote:

---

However I am open to any evidence that shows that more than 1 beneficial mutation can become fixed in a population in a shorter timeframe. Also becoming fixed might not even be enough. What happens when an organism with this new mutation mates with an organism without it?

---

See the above papers, for starters. Even in Haldane's model - clearly you haven't read his papers - mutant alleles are presumed to be initially detrimental, and only when an a change in environment warrants it does it become beneficial. Haldane also posited that most evolutionarily significant mutatnts would be dominant. You know about dominance, right?

quote:

---

And yes the 1667 is derived using Haldane's dilemma. If you think it is faulty perhaps you should start a thread to explain why you think it is.

---

Or better yet, you can start a thread explaining why it IS a 'dilemma'?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
FK:
Where do these numbers come from, John Paul?

​

John Paul:
The 1667 comes from 10 million years (divided by) 300 generations for 1 beneficial mutation to become fixed in a population (divided by) 20 years per generation.

---

Please provide the evidence that human ancestors had a 20 year generation time.

quote:

---

The rest come from the debate I was having with an evolutionist on the Baptist Board: (read the uchicago article)

​

On to some numbers:

​

To further Helen’s point until we have finished the Human Genome Project and the Chimp Genome Project (some 70 genes (well less than 1%) have been compared with less than 1% difference found- 99.01% similar)

---

Who would have thought? An example of hyperbole from St.Helen? Some "70 genes" may have been directly compared, but the amount of intergenic sequence and the fact that those "70 genes" comprise lots of flanking and intronic sequence makes it much more than implied. Also, DNA-DNA hybridization studies, which coimpare the enttire single-copy genomes, has been done. You should know this, Joe, as you linked to that Batten hatchet-job wherein he ignores previous publications and instead harps on Sibley and Ahlquist (for obvious reasons - of course, Batten downplays the tiny differences.. ).Please provide the evidence or even the logic that we should expect some major trend shift as we sequence more of the chimp genome. The trend being the high sequence identity and continued phylogenetic hypothesis confirmation (glad you gave up that error-fest).[/quote]Page Not Found | University of Chicago [/b]*, [/quote]Intersting that you keep citing that paper. Did yo read it? if so, why not a nice synopsis of what is explains - besides your largely out of context soundbite?
By the way - you do realize, do you not, that the "70 genes" were just the ones analyzed in that paper. right?

quote:

---

we won’t have the proper numbers to work with.
If we use 1% that would be a difference of 32 million base pairs (assuming both genomes are of 3.2 Gbp (Giga (= billion) base pairs)). However until we learn the loci of the differences and what those positions do to an organism all we have are numbers. IOW, in order to get the full effect we may have to wait until Human (chimp) Proteome Project (identifying all proteins) and then the Human (chimp) Physiome Project (how the proteins interact) are complete, or at least underway. But sometimes you work with what you have.

---

Yup - keep pushing back the time at which you have to give up. Helen's well-known for that sort of thing. By the way - you might want to hook up with Fred and work out your strategy - you see, he has a fit when such nuymbers are used. Especially when I can provide quotes of his own showing that he argues out of both sides of his mouth.

quote:

---

As you will read in the above article However, there are also differences in the structure of the proteins encoded by genes, which undoubtedly account for some of the observed differences in phenotypes. David Plaisted offers some insight as to the problems with changing the structure of a protein:

---

Didn't you already post this whole message at BB? Why should anyone care what a creationist computer scientist says about proteins? Do you also agree with Plaisted that Haldane's dilemma isn't?

quote:

---

[*from the article: In order to analyze which amino acid replacements have occurred during the evolution of humans and apes, the evolutionary relationships among the species being studied must be inferred. Which makes me wonder what happens when a Common Creator is inferred?]

​

---

The "common creator" would not be inferred because there is no logical reason to do so, as has been explained to you on numerous occasions.At least you are now using that quote in a more or less proper way.But what about this one?"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."Gee - I can only guess why you did not use this quote....

quote:

---

Originally posted by degreed:

​

sorry i can't find my link. i'm disorganized like that.

​

---

You also never provided a link or even an explanation for your 'quadrillion years' to get a beneficial mutatiosn spiel....

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
The article then goes on to say Of these differences, the key ones at the nonsynonymous (nucleotide substitutions that change amino acids) sites are predicted to be found on between 2850 and 4000 genes. So, still assuming a 50/50 split that would be between 1425 & 2000. If it takes much more than (an average of) 1 difference per gene to be one of the key ones, that would mean 1667 would be too few.

---

First, it is foolish to take anything Helen wriotes with anything more than a passing smirk..Now, since actual data gives numbers in the 1400-200 range (which, by the way, seems to include the 1667 number), perhaps you would like to be the first "Haldane-hawk" to provide the evidence that Haldane's model applies to this issue.Also please provide the objective tests used to determine this.