The "Logic" of the creationist....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:homo sapiens, homo erectus and homo neandarthalensis -- three species up until about 30,000 years ago.
[/B][/QUOTE]sorry, wrong answer. Erectus went bye-bye about 300,000 years ago, and Neandertals about 50,000...which doesn't leave much if these gentlemen have done their math correctly. Maybe they haven't, but i think it's a point that needs to be tackled first. [QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
I couldn't find this article when searching Nature. Do you have a link for it?[/B][/QUOTE]No, but it's "Whitfield, L.S., J.E. Suston, and P.N. Goodfellow. 1995. Sequence variation of the human Y chromosome. Nature 378: 379-380. "sorry i can't find my link. i'm disorganized like that.

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 degreed:
sorry, wrong answer. Erectus went bye-bye about 300,000 years ago, and Neandertals about 50,000...which doesn't leave much if these gentlemen have done their math correctly. Maybe they haven't, but i think it's a point that needs to be tackled first.

---

So things seemed until finds of h. erectus near the Soho River in Java were dated the 50,000 kya. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erec.html 404 Not Found And the funeral date for h. neandarthalensis is 30,000 kya, not 50,000.oh... there is h. hedelbergensis too.What is the point actually? I can't tell why you've brought this up?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 08-18-2002][This message has been edited by John, 08-18-2002]

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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:So things seemed until finds of h. erectus near the Soho River in Java were dated the 50,000 kya. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erec.html 404 Not Found And the funeral date for h. neandarthalensis is 30,000 kya, not 50,000.oh... there is h. hedelbergensis too.What is the point actually? I can't tell why you've brought this up?[/B][/QUOTE]Riiight...did you read those links? Our optimistic friends dated animal bones in what they thought was the same sediment as what they believe are Erectus remains. I've seen better studies on the existence of angels. As your own links say, this report has been met with a fairly united skepticism similar to my own.Why don't i generalize to make ends meet...current fossil records put the end of Erectus at LEAST 200,000 years ago. Even confirmed finds of Erectus at 50,000 ago would raise eyebrows, as we don't seem to be able to find any in between. It's nice to find fossils in between.The point rests in that Nature article in my previous post. If the Y chromosome study reported in this article puts Sapiens origins at no more than 50,000 years ago, then we reeeeally need to find an ancestor who was turning into Sapiens at just about that time. Otherwise, you have what OEC's have been saying all along. Creation. Or maybe the study was refuted at a later date. Either way, it's a bit of an important question, isn't it?

degreed writes:

---

The point rests in that Nature article in my previous post. If the Y chromosome study reported in this article puts Sapiens origins at no more than 50,000 years ago, then we reeeeally need to find an ancestor who was turning into Sapiens at just about that time.

---

First, it's difficult to have a meaningful discussion about an article only you have access to.Second, you've misunderstood the study. The 50,000 year date for Y-chromosome Adam is not for the origin of Homo sapiens, but for the most recent common ancestor of all male Homo sapiens alive today. There is also a Mitochondrial Eve, the most recent common ancestor of all female Homo sapiens alive today, thought to have lived around 140,000 years ago.The date of the most recent common ancestor is unrelated to the date of emergence of a new species. The age of Y-chromosome Adam is not the same as the age of the Homo sapien species. And neither is the age of Mitochondrial Eve, obviously not since she has a widely divergent date from Y-chromosome Adam. It would be impossible for females to have become Homo sapiens before males, though I grant it makes lots of sense from other perspectives. --Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by degreed:
Riiight...did you read those links? Our optimistic friends dated animal bones in what they thought was the same sediment as what they believe are Erectus remains.

---

Yes, indeed I did read those links. And yes, the dates are debatable. You asked what else was around. I answered off the top of my head.When I was in college eleven years ago or so, the accepted geneology of the species was a bit different. It will likely change again as evidence comes in, which makes debating this tricky. Erectus is somewhat of a red herring anyway, as it may well be a cousin and not a precursor.Heidelbergensis is a another option for our ancestor.

quote:

---

I've seen better studies on the existence of angels.

---

No you haven't.

quote:

---

Why don't i generalize to make ends meet...current fossil records put the end of Erectus at LEAST 200,000 years ago.

---

The current replacement model puts modern homo sapiens as having evolved from archaic homo sapiens-- note homo sapiens-- around 200,000-100,000 years ago. Can't believe I missed this the first time around. This means that homo sapien evolved sometime before that date, ie. well before your date of 50kya. What started 50k ago was regional variation of modern humans-- skin color, that sort of thing. No webpage found at provided URL: http://anthropology.palomar.edu/homo2/modern_humans.htm

quote:

---

Even confirmed finds of Erectus at 50,000 ago would raise eyebrows, as we don't seem to be able to find any in between.

---

And as I said, perhaps not all that important to the issue at hand as h. erectus may not even be an ancestor.

quote:

---

The point rests in that Nature article in my previous post. If the Y chromosome study reported in this article puts Sapiens origins at no more than 50,000 years ago, then we reeeeally need to find an ancestor who was turning into Sapiens at just about that time.

---

I can't comment on the Nature article. I don't have it. I suspect it is not about sapien origins per se. Produce the article. Prove me wrong.

quote:

---

Either way, it's a bit of an important question, isn't it?

---

Sure is.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
What is the point actually? I can't tell why you've brought this up?

---

I was also wondering about that. Degreed, what exactly is the relevance? How does it affect the argument?FK

Dear SLPx,In response to: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--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You wrote:Actually, n o it doesn't.I say:
Well, as demonstrated by the reference: IT DOES, your statement was not correct.And:
"Perhaps you can provide us with some examples of what you speak."I say:
This reference is the first one that was published. Since only the minor part of chimps genes is known there will (for sure) follow more. These genes will provide a severe problem for the putative non-random mechanism of NDT. As explained below.And you said:
"What you see as a 'directed mechanism' those with experience see as the result of either selection of the physicochemical properties of the DNA sequence in question."I say:
Maybe you could be clearer on the putative physicochemical properties of DNA sequence in question.And you state:
"More undue extrapolations."I say:
"Who is doing the undue extrapolations? Why are evolutionists allowed to do unwarranted extrapolations all the time, then?"And:
Concerning the Nature article:It should be noted that fifteen copies of the duplicated segment were found in humans. (I also wonder whether duplications are randomly introduced or also non-randomly, directed).The authors state: "Sequence comparison of putative proteins from two full length human transcripts showed 81% amino acid sequence identity"And, the authors state: "...the corresponding NON-CODING portions of genomic DNA were 98.1% identical"Furthermore the authors state that: "We found NO significant sequence similarities to this gene in other organisms..."They conclude that: "These data suggest either that the exonic regions were HYPERMUTABLE or that amino acid changes had been selected for."{I agree on HYPERMUTABLE. Here, SELECTION is only a matter of believe. I am sure that the mechanism underlying hyper-mutability is directed by protein and/or RNA.}My comments:
If genes emerge and evolve rapidly giving rise to genes with little/no similarity to ancestral precursors, than how did they come into being?
According to NDT an original LCR16a gene region (where did it come from, anyway?) duplicated several times. Duplications give rise to IDENTICAL regions and if it encodes a protein it will specify the same protein. After duplication the genes/DNA regions are redundant. Redundant regions accumulate mutations at a neutral rate. Mutation rate is approx 10exp(-10) - 10exp(-9)/nucleotide/year. In the gene random accumulation of mutations will occur with an incidence of approx 1.5 exp(-6). That is 1.5-15 nucleotides per million years in this approx 2000 bp gene. In 6 million year there will be only 9-90 nucleotides to be different. That is a lousy 0.5-5 promille. It doesn’t matter whether selection acts or not, since the generation of mutations is a random process (according to NDT). It indicates that you need a very large population, and it has been demonstrated with the ZFY region (that provides another major problem for evolution theory) that only minor populations of humans had to be present.It should be noted that sequences similar to LCR16 are present in all great apes but the gene is specific for humans: the authors did not find a match in other organisms.NDT does not have an explanation for this gene. According to theory, a common ancestor for chimp and human lived 5-6 million years ago. In 5-6 million years random accumulation in redundant genes cannot give rise to new genes. It already takes approx 150 million years for a gene to arise from a duplication that has approx 20% sequence identity (see the actinin genes). What we see is that the LCR16 region has attracted/accumulated mutations in a much defined area: the coding region. Notably, there are 15 similar LCR16 regions, but only one of them accumulated the mutations. So, the authors are right in claiming that the region is hypermutable --the gene in particular--and indicates a non-random mechanism. However, they cannot introduce a non-random mechanism since it would violate NDT.In addition, if you have a careful look at table 3 you will find out that exon 4 demonstrates more variation WITHIN chimpanzee species than BETWEEN human and chimp.Finally, we find NEGATIVE selection for exon 2 within Hylobates subspecies (table 2).So, could you please tell me what kind of evolution is it that we observe in this region?Best wishes,Peter

quote:

---

Second, you've misunderstood the study. The 50,000 year date for Y-chromosome Adam is not for the origin of Homo sapiens, but for the most recent common ancestor of all male Homo sapiens alive today. There is also a Mitochondrial Eve, the most recent common ancestor of all female Homo sapiens alive today, thought to have lived around 140,000 years ago.

---

Anyway, I wonder, if Eve's position is in Africa, then where on Earth is Adam? Studies like these could include geographic locations.

SLP:
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.John Paul:
As I had already pointed out the number is NOT 1667 if we are talking about the chimp/ human common ancestor. Also the 14xx- 2000 is the number of key genes NOT the number of mutations.Why don't you provide an objective test to support the reigning paradigm? What's that? You can't! Go figure...

quote:

---

According to NDT an original LCR16a gene region (where did it come from, anyway?) duplicated several times. Duplications give rise to IDENTICAL regions and if it encodes a protein it will specify the same protein. After duplication the genes/DNA regions are redundant. Redundant regions accumulate mutations at a neutral rate. Mutation rate is approx 10exp(-10) - 10exp(-9)/nucleotide/year. In the gene random accumulation of mutations will occur with an incidence of approx 1.5 exp(-6). That is 1.5-15 nucleotides per million years in this approx 2000 bp gene. In 6 million year there will be only 9-90 nucleotides to be different. That is a lousy 0.5-5 promille. It doesn’t matter whether selection acts or not, since the generation of mutations is a random process (according to NDT). It indicates that you need a very large population, and it has been demonstrated with the ZFY region (that provides another major problem for evolution theory) that only minor populations of humans had to be present.

---

The mutation rate is proportional to population size, which varies over time. Therefore a fixed rate of nucleotide substitution is only valid given the size of the present population.In addition to this, changes in the size of the population have a substantial effect on mutatation and fixation. A population typically doesn't stay constant over 5 million years.John Paul:You seem not to be able to explain why Haldane's replacement cost theory ignores soft selection and multiple simultaneous mutations undergoing selection simultaneously? Why should we bother with your argument about a particular number of mutations if you can't even support the process by which you arrived at this number?[This message has been edited by Rationalist, 08-19-2002]