Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "Logic" of the creationist....
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 69 (15307)
08-12-2002 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by derwood
08-11-2002 1:55 PM


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.
What the links do is to show we have no idea how these adaptations came to be. We only assume they evolved because we assume humans did evolve from some primitive ancestor.
The only one with faulty logic is you and your buddy Robert. Again. YOU don't get to choose the mutations. Robert's "test" was faulty. Excuse me for exposing it.
It is also not my problem that you and your ilk can't understand logical reasoning.
------------------
John Paul
[This message has been edited by John Paul, 08-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by derwood, posted 08-11-2002 1:55 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by derwood, posted 08-12-2002 10:52 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 5 by peter borger, posted 08-13-2002 2:39 AM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 69 (15484)
08-15-2002 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by derwood
08-12-2002 10:52 PM


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.
Scott:
Oh - and who said anything about 'choosing' the mutations?
John Paul:
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.
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. And by assuming common descent we are assuming that mutations can do the trick. Any evidence to support that assumption?
------------------
John Paul
[This message has been edited by John Paul, 08-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by derwood, posted 08-12-2002 10:52 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 08-15-2002 8:46 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 18 by derwood, posted 08-16-2002 5:11 PM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 69 (15485)
08-15-2002 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Quetzal
08-15-2002 5:15 AM


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.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 08-15-2002 5:15 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by mark24, posted 08-15-2002 12:48 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 20 by derwood, posted 08-16-2002 5:20 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 69 (15561)
08-17-2002 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by derwood
08-16-2002 5:11 PM


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.
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.
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)
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.
toodles

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by derwood, posted 08-16-2002 5:11 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by derwood, posted 08-18-2002 7:21 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 69 (15565)
08-17-2002 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Fedmahn Kassad
08-15-2002 8:46 PM


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.
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)
Page Not Found | University of Chicago [/b]*,
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.
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:
Biochemical Limits to Evolution: The Untold Story and Problems in Protein Evolution
The basics of which is just how much change can a protein’s structure take and still be a functional part of the chain or function properly in its particular job? How many malfunctioning proteins can an organism handle?
[*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?]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just for reference:
From: http://imbs.massey.ac.nz/evo2.pdf
genetic differences, chimp/human:
- one chromosome fusion
- one enzyme lost (sialic acid)
- a couple of differences in copy number
- many small inversions
- transposable elements activated
- Many indels (insertions/deletions)
- many point mutations
- Some introns expanded/contracted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using just the numbers saying we have a 32 million base pair difference we would have to figure out the mutation accumulation rate of each branch. If we use Helen’s starting assumption of a 50/50 split that would be 16 million base pairs for each divergent branch. 16 million base pair differences/ 5 million years = 3 base pairs per year. We know that can’t be so we break it down into generations. A ten-year generation period would be 30 base pairs becoming fixed in a population every ten years. A twenty-year generation period would be 60, and so on. That is not to have 60 different base pairs in the population, but 60 bp that must become fixed (on average) per organism throughout the population. And if those organisms don’t take over, or get isolated from the population you add the risk of losing that 60 bp in the ensuing generations. One step forward, 2 steps back.
However the article on the chimp genome project estimates chimps & humans differ in 445,000 coding positions. 445,000/ 2 = 222,500, which amounts to just under 1 (.89) becoming fixed (per generation) in a population with a generation of 20 years. (Plus a number of non-coding mutations. this is considering a split of 5 million years ago).
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 08-15-2002 8:46 PM Fedmahn Kassad has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by derwood, posted 08-18-2002 7:48 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 37 by derwood, posted 08-18-2002 7:52 PM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 69 (15568)
08-17-2002 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rationalist
08-17-2002 12:09 PM


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. 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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rationalist, posted 08-17-2002 12:09 PM Rationalist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 08-17-2002 1:06 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 33 by derwood, posted 08-18-2002 7:28 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 69 (15690)
08-19-2002 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by derwood
08-18-2002 7:52 PM


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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by derwood, posted 08-18-2002 7:52 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by derwood, posted 08-20-2002 1:42 AM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 69 (15790)
08-20-2002 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by derwood
08-20-2002 1:46 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by derwood, posted 08-20-2002 1:46 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by derwood, posted 08-21-2002 11:41 AM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 69 (15791)
08-20-2002 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by derwood
08-20-2002 1:42 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by derwood, posted 08-20-2002 1:42 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by derwood, posted 08-21-2002 11:45 AM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 69 (15830)
08-21-2002 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by derwood
08-20-2002 1:42 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by derwood, posted 08-20-2002 1:42 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by derwood, posted 08-21-2002 11:49 AM John Paul has not replied
 Message 63 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 08-21-2002 8:21 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 69 (15855)
08-21-2002 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by derwood
08-21-2002 11:45 AM


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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
That is demonstrably false.
John Paul:
Wrong again.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phylogeny can hardly be an objective test if the results can also be used to deduce a Common Creator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
They cannot rationally or logically be used in such a way, as I have excplained to your over and over and over.
John Paul:
One thing that is obvious when reading your posts is the absolute lack of logic you possess.
BTW, I did go to the links and I understand what was presented there...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by derwood, posted 08-21-2002 11:45 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by mark24, posted 08-21-2002 4:09 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 66 by derwood, posted 08-22-2002 1:11 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024