Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 3:09 AM
26 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,109 Year: 9,145/19,786 Month: 1,567/2,119 Week: 327/576 Day: 2/128 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   The "Logic" of the creationist....
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 responded

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

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3360 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 62 of 69 (15859)
08-21-2002 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by John Paul
08-21-2002 1:49 PM


JP,

OK, I'm interested, how does phylogenetic analysis deduce a common creator?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by John Paul, posted 08-21-2002 1:49 PM John Paul has not yet responded

    
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 69 (15872)
08-21-2002 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by John Paul
08-21-2002 9:43 AM


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.


I am a little confused about your numbers, John. Perhaps you could clear up a few things. Earlier, I had posted this but got no response:

quote:
Thank you so much for your reply! Let me see if I have this correct. Please correct any errors. 1667 refers to beneficial alleles in the human line over the course of 10 million years. 225,000 refers to the coding difference between humans and the human-chimp ancestor. Is the relationship between the 1667 alleles and the number of coding differences known? I would assume that the majority of 1667 would be single base pair substitutions, but a transposon or two would allow many base pair differences. Does the 225,000 coding difference include neutral and harmful mutations?

If you could please answer these questions for me, it would help my understanding.

Thank you.

FK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by John Paul, posted 08-21-2002 9:43 AM John Paul has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5830 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 64 of 69 (15893)
08-22-2002 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Percy
08-18-2002 11:10 PM


Dear Percy,

I have some comments on the human ZFY region:

It was very surprising that within the samples obtained from human subpopulations NO polymorphisms were detected whatsoever. On the contrary, inspection of the corresponding homologous intron region in the primates reveals that several variable sites are distributed throughout the intron and include at least 39 substitutions (21 transitions and 14 transversions) and 4 insertion/deletion (indel) mutations. Thus, at least 5% variation in this region is observed between human and primates.

The complete absence of variation in the ZFY region in humans is very awkward, and, according to the authors, cannot be ascribed to a chance alone (= random mechanism).

Introns are thought to be subject to neutral evolution, and variation within the human population is predicted on neutral positions. Confronted with the peculiar situation of the absence of variation, the authors must apply statistics to define an era when the common ancestor of all males lived. They estimate that ‘Y-chromosome Adam’ lived around 270.000 (range 0-800.000) years before present.

It should be noted that the non-variant intron sequences in the ZFY region provides a severe problem for evolution biologists, since molecular rules demand some neutral evolution: variation on silent positions. But, he authors state that "…the invariance likely may results from a selective sweep, a recent origin of modern Homo sapiens, or a historically small effective male population sizes". Let us have a look what this evolutionary jargon means.

Humans have 46 chromosomes. One set of 23 chromosomes is inherited from the mother, including the sex-determining chromosome X. The other set of 23 chromosomes is obtained from the father, and may include either an X- or a Y chromosome. Females have two 22 pairs of autosomal and one pair of X chromosomes. Therefore, all genes are backed up by an additional copy. In contrast, males have one X chromosome and a Y chromosome. Genetic information on these chromosomes is present as single non-allelic genes, meaning that these genes are not backed up by genes present on other chromosomes.
Because the X and Y chromosome have little sequence homology there is no recombination possible between the major part of these chromosomes, and most of the genes on the Y chromosome will behave as one linked genetic group. Hence, if an advantageous mutation occurs in a gene on the Y chromosome it will drag with it all the non-recombining parts of the chromosome. A rapid, natural selection driven fixation of any advantageous gene on the Y chromosome would therefore result in loss of variance throughout the entire Y chromosome (Svante Paabo in Nature). Because all non-recombining DNA sequences of the Y chromosome are replaced in a single sweep, this vision predicts that variability should be absent in all linked non-recombining Y chromosome genes.

A recent study in mice on the non-coding region flanking the SRY gene, which is directly responsible for inducing maleness, is revealing in this matter. The study compared the amount of variation within the species and related it to the amount of variation among species. Then, the authors compared this ratio to the ratio for a rapidly changing region in the mitochondrial DNA obtained in the same way.

If any of the two regions were subject to a selective sweep, it would be demonstrated by a reduced variation within species. It was found, however, that the non-coding region of the SRY gene changed at a neutral rate. It implicates that, because of linkage of the major part of the Y chromosomal genes, the entire non-recombining part of the Y chromosome changes at a neutral rate. Therefore, it is unlikely that natural selection acts upon the Y chromosome. More recently, similar findings were observed in human.

But if natural selection did not act upon the Y chromosome the high degree of variability of the Y chromosome between primates apparently defies the theory of evolution, since the coding region of the SRY gene is very stable within a species, whereas considerable variation is observed between distinct species (again!).

"Some part of the SRY protein show such high degree of variability between distinct primate species that one must conclude that part of the protein has no function at all, or that the gene is subject to directional selection (!)", says evolution biologist Svante Pääbo in Nature. However, directional selection is only demonstrated in cases involving intergenomic conflict, such as occur between host and pathogen, but is has never been observed for non-immune system related protein coding genes.

The only remaining scientific explanation of the variability in the Y chromosome between species is by the mechanism of NEUTRAL EVOLUTION. Yet, the observation that more replacement substitutions than synonymous substitutions are present between species suggests that a neutral mechanism is not likely to be responsible for variation among species. The ultimate hypothesis evolutionists propose is that "these regions have been retained throughout the primate lineage without any requirement for sequence conservation, implying that the SRY protein is […] the HMG box alone".

But that doesn't solve the problem. It would still imply that the SRY protein is expected to evolve at a neutral rate! The peculiar thing about the SRY proteins was, however, that they are much more variable than predicted by neutral evolution. To properly understand this one has to assume selection on neutral positions (= neutral selection!!). (OR: a NON-RANDOM mechanism of mutations).

I can imagine that evolutionary biologists really get frustrated solving the riddles around the SRY region. Despite several ad hoc hypotheses it all ends in a paradox. Apparently, there is no explanation for the high degree of dissimilarity of SRY region between distinct primates within the current evolutionary paradigm.

Best wishes,

Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Percy, posted 08-18-2002 11:10 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 08-22-2002 1:05 PM peter borger has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 65 of 69 (15931)
08-22-2002 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by peter borger
08-22-2002 3:00 AM


As I said to degreed, it's difficult to have a meaningful discussion about an article you have no access to. I stopped subscribing to Nature because they have no web-only category, which is how I subscribe to Science. With Nature there is no way to prevent 52 copies per year appearing in your mailbox - somewhat ironic for a journal named Nature to kill so many trees.

Why don't you scan it in?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by peter borger, posted 08-22-2002 3:00 AM peter borger has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 41 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 66 of 69 (15932)
08-22-2002 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by John Paul
08-21-2002 1:49 PM


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.


Please explain. You clearly and obviously do not understand phylogenetics/cladistics at all, yet prattle on and on. So, no, not wrong at all.

quote:

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.


Wow. You continue to score these amazing points off me. well, at least you seem to think you have. maybe then you can explain - using real data - how it is, EXACTLY, that a common creator can be inferred from DNA sequence data.

Please tell me what loci you use in your analysis, what programs you use to analyse it, and what parameters you use in your analysis so that I can duplicate your experiment.

quote:

BTW, I did go to the links and I understand what was presented there...


Ok. Well, why don't you explain to us all how a course syllabus supports ReMine's claims that more than 500,000 mutations would be needed to explain human evolution from an apelike ancestor.

I cannot wait to see a real logic expert in action - especially one that works with computers!

[Added missing close quote. --Admin]

[This message has been edited by Admin, 08-22-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by John Paul, posted 08-21-2002 1:49 PM John Paul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by derwood, posted 09-03-2002 12:43 PM derwood has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 41 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 67 of 69 (16499)
09-03-2002 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by derwood
08-22-2002 1:11 PM


keeping it alive...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by derwood, posted 08-22-2002 1:11 PM derwood has not yet responded

    
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 69 (16830)
09-07-2002 2:42 AM


The "Devolution" of JP..

From reading the posts, I would characterize debates which JP largely proceed as follows:

JP: Evolutionists don't have a leg to stand on. What about X?

EV: Well, X seems to be a natural component of evolution.

JP: That is ridiculously naive. You believe that simply because you are a brainwashed evolutionist robot. You know that creationist Y said this about X. It is proven.

EV: Creationist Y is wrong because if these various problems with his argument...

JP: I can't believe how stupid you are. You honestly believe all this crap the evolutionists are shoveling. You are a mental pygmy. What about the fact that evolutionist Z said "Insert out of context quote here".

EV: That quote was taken out of context to make it seems as if the individual believed something he didn't. As to your other points..

JP: The reason you don't agree with me is because you are obviously too stupid to see my point. I have clearly proven you completely wrong, and if you weren't a blithering gibbering idiot, you would admit that I was right.

EV: Usually responds in kind..

JP: You are too feeble minded to understand spetner, behe, (etc. etc.) They have proven everything and you have proven nothing. You're an imbecile, a mental midget without a clue. Your understanding of the issues is dwarfed by my own, and you simply just don't realize it. Your arguments are that of a four year old. My Dog is smarter than you, and so is my parakeet, and my pet goldfish. You just don't have two neurons to rub together my friend.

[This message has been edited by Rationalist, 09-07-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 09-09-2002 10:01 PM Rationalist has not yet responded

  
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 69 (17033)
09-09-2002 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Rationalist
09-07-2002 2:42 AM


There is a good deal of truth in what you write.

Speaking of John Paul, I wonder where he has gone? I asked a number of questions of him, and never got a reply.

FK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Rationalist, posted 09-07-2002 2:42 AM Rationalist has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019