The "Logic" of the creationist....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PercipientFirst, it's difficult to have a meaningful discussion about an article only you have access to.
--Percy[/B][/QUOTE]I consider myself sacked for not having the link in hand before the referral. Not having a subscription to Nature, i'm peeling back through all of my old crap in search. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient
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[/B][/QUOTE]Sharp as always, master P.I didn't quite round out the point...if this had already been rehashed, i didn't want to waste anyone else's time. I agree with your date for MEve. What stands out to me at this point, in the discussion of the ascent of HSapiens, is a combination of factors. The Y-chromosome study should give us a very careful pause when we consider the timing of the development of modern HSapiens. Moving further, the concentration and abrupt appearance of a host of cultural developments (rapid proliferation and advancement of stone tools, bone/antler carvings and 'jewelry', 'pictorial' art, etc) speak very strongly of an abrupt shift in the cultural and biological makeup of HSapiens.
The other point of the study was simply to reinforce the lack of evidence for interspecie Hominid activity in this era...isolating the abrupt appearance of modern HSapiens.It's more good, solid paleontology that doesn't support the evo paradigm. Abrupt shifts in the makeup of species or the appearance of species bring you closer to a Creator, not further.
Moreover, do you agree that the genetic diversity among current HSapiens neither resembles what we see among living ape species, nor fits what evolution must predict?Or, you can just ignore me until i find that !$^!#$!ing link. (damn, i'm Christian...i can't swear! what the hell am i thinking!

quote:

---

Originally posted by degreed:
Moving further, the concentration and abrupt appearance of a host of cultural developments (rapid proliferation and advancement of stone tools, bone/antler carvings and 'jewelry', 'pictorial' art, etc) speak very strongly of an abrupt shift in the cultural and biological makeup of HSapiens.

---

Cultural, yes. Biological?

quote:

---

The other point of the study was simply to reinforce the lack of evidence for interspecie Hominid activity in this era...isolating the abrupt appearance of modern HSapiens.

---

But the species did not abruptly arise in this 'era'

quote:

---

It's more good, solid paleontology that doesn't support the evo paradigm.

---

What?

quote:

---

Abrupt shifts in the makeup of species or the appearance of species bring you closer to a Creator, not further.

---

Not really.

quote:

---

Moreover, do you agree that the genetic diversity among current HSapiens neither resembles what we see among living ape species, nor fits what evolution must predict?

---

No.There isn't much genetic diversity within h. sapiens. What diversity exists is due to our inhabiting vastely diverse environments. No other primate species shares that great of a range, so the analogy is flawed.

quote:

---

damn, i'm Christian...i can't swear! what the hell am i thinking!

---

I bet Jesus swore when he was trashing those money changers.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

It's more good, solid paleontology that doesn't support the evo paradigm.

---

What?
[/b][/quote]I won't rebut the upper half of your last posting until i can pony up with a link. Sound fair?
Here, though...i'm a bit confused. The Hominid fossil record is a study in stasis followed by punctuation. That's all i was trying to show. I'm surprised that you would follow

quote:

---

Abrupt shifts in the makeup of species or the appearance of species bring you closer to a Creator, not further.

---

with [QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
Not really.
[/b][/quote]Is there some mystical room in evolution theory that allows for species to live in stasis for long periods of time, only to be suddenly replaced or joined by brand new species? [QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
There isn't much genetic diversity within h. sapiens. What diversity exists is due to our inhabiting vastely diverse environments. No other primate species shares that great of a range, so the analogy is flawed.
[/b][/quote]Did you mean to contradict yourself? You seem smart, so i'll assume you didn't. What i read from that is that our genetic diversity is due to our diversity of environmental range. This means that less-ranged species will have less diversity. This is the opposite of what we see...which is my point. [QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
I bet Jesus swore when he was trashing those money changers.
[/B][/QUOTE]I bet you'll never catch Jesus calling someone an infidel...

quote:

---

Originally posted by degreed:
Is there some mystical room in evolution theory that allows for species to live in stasis for long periods of time, only to be suddenly replaced or joined by brand new species?

---

There is nothing mystical about it. Some species do live in relative stasis for long periods of time. If a form works, it may hang around for awhile. Then something happens-- climate change or reproductive isolation or some such-- and new species start to show up. Exactly what happens to trigger the change will have to be worked out on a case by case basis, and I doubt the question can be answered in many cases. The information just isn't there. I don't see the problem here.

quote:

---

Did you mean to contradict yourself?

---

I didn't contradict myself.

quote:

---

What i read from that is that our genetic diversity is due to our diversity of environmental range. This means that less-ranged species will have less diversity. This is the opposite of what we see...which is my point.

---

What primate SPECIES has a range equal to our own? There isn't one. Chimps are restricted to part of Africa, gorillas to a tiny part of Africa, etc. We don't have much genetic diversity but probably a wee bit more than, say, gorrillas. This diversity would probably be much greater if we didn't adapt via culture. Of course, if we didn't adapt via culture we may not have infested all of these various habitats. It is exactly what I'd expect actually.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
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.

---

Then why mention them?

quote:

---

Why don't you provide an objective test to support the reigning paradigm? What's that? You can't! Go figure...

---

You don't read very well, do you? Oh, wait - that phylogenetics stuff is over your head. Can't be objective if you can't understand it...

Shame ol' Joey Gallien decided to ignore my replies...Probably better for him in the long run...

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
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.

---

No, my statement was correct. I am unaware of any phylogenetic studies that does not place Homo in a clade with the great apes. That there will occasionally be a locus here and there that exhibits interesting mutation patterns is only 'big news' to creationists.

quote:

---

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.

---

Funny - creationists have been saying that molecular biology will disprove 'Darwninsim' (for sure) for over a decade now...

quote:

---

These genes will provide a severe problem for the putative non-random mechanism of NDT. As explained below.

---

Not really. As explained below.

quote:

---

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.

---

Sure - polypurines/polypyrimidines, for example, are prone to often largescale insertions and deletions due to polymerase error.

quote:

---

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?"

---

You are doijng the undue extrapolation. It is a creationist staple. I wish evoloutionsists would use more discretion in the language they use, for example, during TV or news interviews, but I am unaware of these unwarranted extrapolations of which you speak.

quote:

---

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).

---

Of course you do. In creationism circles, such thoughts are usually presented as facts (see ReMine, for example).

quote:

---

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.}

---

You are sure of this? It must be true then. If it is 'directed' by other cellular molecules, how is this then evidence agaisnt evolution?
What was your point again?

quote:

---

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?

---

Magic? Anthropomorphic superbeing poofed it into existence? Space men?

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). .. In 6 million year there will be only 9-90 nucleotides to be different.

---

I believe that mutation rates have been updated a bit. I don't recall the numbers off hand.

quote:

---

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.

---

And this is indicative of special creation of humans how? This is indicative of non-random mutagenesis how?

quote:

---

NDT does not have an explanation for this gene.

---

Does cretionism?

quote:

---

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.

---

What are the flanking sequences like? Did they say (haven't read the article yet)? What is your idea of 'non-random'?

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes - it has been known for some time that there chimps exhibit greater variation than humans do. Must be the creator had something planned for them...

quote:

---

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?

---

I would have to know what the gene product is before I could hazard a guess.Could you provide a creationist explanation?Or is that asking too much?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rationalist: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][/B][/QUOTE]Indeed...

scotty I try to ignore you as often as possible. Debating a fool is foolish.toodles

scotty:
Oh, wait - that phylogenetics stuff is over your head. Can't be objective if you can't understand it...John Paul:
I can understand anything you can understand. Phylogeny can hardly be an objective test if the results can also be used to deduce a Common Creator.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:

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.

---

Wouldn't that be expected in an evolutionary scenario since chimps,
in general do not inter-breed outside of their 'tribe' while
humans do and have done for many millenia ?

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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Then why mention them?John Paul:
It's quite obvious:
If there are differences in 14xx- 2000 key genes that would mean there had to be at least that many mutations. We also know we differ in about 16 million base pairs and 222500 coding positions. In the evolutionary scheme of things those differences would have been caused by mutations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
scotty I try to ignore you as often as possible. Debating a fool is foolish.

​

toodles

---

Wow. Another gem. Of course, you don't really 'debate' anything, you just write a bunch of gibberish and engage in whatever tactics you need to to try to 'defend' that gibberish.Your most recent tactics include:trying to focus on minutiae instead of relevant issues
trying to shift burdens
making bizaree extrapolationsDid I miss any?Still waiting for your objective tests and evidence for your position, and an explanation of why mol phylo is not objective.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Dr.Page:
Oh, wait - that phylogenetics stuff is over your head. Can't be objective if you can't understand it...

​

John Paul:
I can understand anything you can understand.

---

That is demonstrably false.

quote:

---

Phylogeny can hardly be an objective test if the results can also be used to deduce a Common Creator.

---

They cannot rationally or logically be used in such a way, as I have excplained to your over and over and over.I take it that you have decided not to follow the links to the sequence alignment yourself - better that way. Plausible deniability and all that. I mean, if you ignore the data, you can pretend that your supposed 'interpretation' of it is valid.I have to wonder - does Joey really think he is accomplishing anything by simply repeating his mantras over and over?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
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.

---

So why don't you explain how/why the 1667 number (or whatever you are now claiming) pertains to pre-human populations.Please provide your data and corroborating evidence. Please explain and support with verifiable documentation your contention that 1667 (or whatever it is) cannot account for human evolution from an apelike ancestor.You see, Joey, that paper you like to cite - the Biocomplexity paper - I was at the meeting at which the paper was presented. I know and have worked with the authors. I know about the data they used. That is, they used real data.You are using embellished extrapolations of a nearly 50 year old mathematical model made without such data.I take data over math any day.