Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genetics and Human Brain Evolution
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 106 of 157 (360714)
11-02-2006 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by eggasai
11-02-2006 8:19 AM


Re: The truth will prevail, get on the winning side
That's just it, I don't have a tenuous grip of the basics, it never occured to me that RNA programed proteins.
Eh? What happened to DNA ---> RNA ----> protein? What do you mean here? A complementary mRNA strand codes for a protein just as much as, if not more then, the protein coding DNA strand from which it is transcribed. Not all RNAs are translated into protein but the vast majority from identified genes are. So what does 'RNA programed proteins' mean?
Just admit it, bp means base pair
I never denied it, in fact I said it just a post or two back when I was explaining what Sfs' formula actually meant, I think you would be hard pressed to find anywhere where Sfs has denied this either.
and mutations are measured in base pairs or single nucleotides.
Well I'm not sure I can agree to this. Certainly the length of an insertion or deletion or inversion would be measured in base pairs and so would the size of a region affected by a higher order chromosomal rearrangement. In terms of a mutation rate what one measures is the number of mutational events, this can be categorised based on the type of event to produce distinct mutational rates but an overall mutation rate will be in terms of the number of mutational events rather than the number of base pairs affected by the event. The size of a mutation is measured in bps not the number of mutations.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by eggasai, posted 11-02-2006 8:19 AM eggasai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by eggasai, posted 11-02-2006 5:41 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 107 of 157 (360733)
11-02-2006 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by eggasai
11-02-2006 8:19 AM


Re: The truth will prevail, get on the winning side
Heck, we're still waiting for you to admit that codons are comprised of nucleotides, and that amino acids don't encode proteins, proteins are made of amino acids...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by eggasai, posted 11-02-2006 8:19 AM eggasai has not replied

  
eggasai
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 157 (360895)
11-02-2006 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Wounded King
11-02-2006 9:00 AM


None so blind
This is where he comes right out and says bp does not mean base pairs, it means mutation events:
quote:
The 2x10^-8/bp/generation is the number of mutation events, not the number of base pairs. (It's also just the single-base substitution rate, but that's less important.) It doesn't matter how many times you make that comparison: it will be wrong every time you do.
How clear does it have to be? Now you guys want a base pair to be anywhere from one to a million nucleotides long. Darwinian logic, Darwinian laughter, Darwinian deception. Like I say, I'll be taking this up with Steve on CF. I really don't care what kind of convoluted arguements you guys use unless you are professing Christians. This statement is a direct contradiction, bp cannot be both a base pair and multiple base pairs and there is no way you and him don't know exactly what that means.
That's what happened when I polled posters on CF about the Time article. They all said that the statement that, 'chimpanzees and humans have 98% the same DNA', is a true and accurate statement. When I showed them otherwise the party line was that they just counted the single base substitutions. Now you guys are propagandizing the idea that one base pair is the same as a million base pairs, bp simply means a single mutation event.
I don't think there is a misconception, or somekind of a miscommunication going on here. I think this is blatant deception, you are trying to create the illusion of commonality so you conflate the evidence. You tell me that you would never dream of denying that bp stands for base pair or that sfs would. The quote is right there WK, you keep trying to rationalize it away but it's right there.
Don't you guys try to correct me when you don't have the courage of your convinctions enough to correct one another. I'll never take an evolutionist at their word again, especially if they work in the genetics field. I'm convinced you guys can't be trusted because you will deny the truth anytime it conflicts even slightly with TOE as natural history.
Edited by eggasai, : thinking of a nice way to say this...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Wounded King, posted 11-02-2006 9:00 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by NosyNed, posted 11-02-2006 5:53 PM eggasai has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 109 of 157 (360898)
11-02-2006 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by eggasai
11-02-2006 5:41 PM


Remedial reading for egg
2x10^-8/bp/generation IS the number of mutation events not base pairs.
It is the number of mutation events per base pair per generation.
It is not base pairs; it is not generations.
You'll have to read a LOT more carefully.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by eggasai, posted 11-02-2006 5:41 PM eggasai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by eggasai, posted 11-02-2006 7:36 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 157 (360917)
11-02-2006 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by eggasai
11-02-2006 6:43 AM


Re: Theater of the mind
The debates over dude, I'm just hanging around long enough to tell you guys exactly why.
I don't why you were expecting honesty from a group that has no moral fiber to begin with and no real concept of morality apart from some relativistic, abstract concept. It may be difficult, I know, but try and hear the evo's out. Not all of them are stark raving lunatics. And if anything, take as a way to hone your debate skills and to stay sharp with the latest arguments, pro and con.
I went through something simular with Liberal theology and finally realized it was just eccumentical atheism.
Heh. We have quite a few of those here on EvC who profess to be Christian but really have nothing good to say about Christ. And virtually all of their beliefs mirror atheism which makes me wonder how exactly they consider themselves Christians.
Now in the life sciences you have Darwinian duplicity, the fact is I can't trust anything you guys say. When you are wrong and I know your wrong you won't admit it, why would I ask you about something I am trying to learn? Your just going to tell me wrong.
Again, you're shocked?
Sorry buddy, I have suddenly lost all interest. I'm going to put together a blog and maybe start a website where Christians can learn about he historicity of Scripture without having their faith ridiculed.
Drop me an invite. My wife is working on a similar site.

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by eggasai, posted 11-02-2006 6:43 AM eggasai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Wounded King, posted 11-02-2006 6:55 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 112 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 11-02-2006 7:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 114 by eggasai, posted 11-02-2006 7:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 126 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2006 11:12 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 137 by RAZD, posted 11-04-2006 9:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 111 of 157 (360923)
11-02-2006 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Hyroglyphx
11-02-2006 6:40 PM


Theater of the absurd
I don't why you were expecting honesty from a group that has no moral fiber to begin with and no real concept of morality apart from some relativistic, abstract concept.
Is this on topic? Do you have anything to add? If you want to contribute here why don't you try and help your rut stuck co-religionist to understand either the very basic fundamentals of molecular genetics which they seem incapable of grasping, I assure you it probably wouldn't take you more than 5 minutes of reading to see that Eggasai's conception is majorly messed up, or even the fundamentals of reading a formula which also seems to be causing them a lot of trouble.
Don't come here bemoaning hom immoral/amoral and dishonest we all are and commisserating with an ignorant, arrogant, virtual troll who can't be bothered to poke their head out of the shell of bullshit they have surrounded themselves with for long enough to see that in fact they don't know shit from shinola.
Do you have any idea who has the right side scientifically in this argument? If you agree with Eggasai why not provide some evidence if not then why are you accusing the rest of us of dishonesty?
If this an example of your honesty and moral fiber you are welcome to it.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-02-2006 6:40 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-03-2006 9:53 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
CACTUSJACKmankin
Member (Idle past 6273 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-22-2006


Message 112 of 157 (360927)
11-02-2006 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Hyroglyphx
11-02-2006 6:40 PM


Re: Theater of the mind
What does the science behind mutation events and human brain evolution have to do with having no morality? If you address the people and not the arguements that's called an ad hominem which has no place in a discussion. If you want to contribute to the discussion then address the scientific arguements presented thus far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-02-2006 6:40 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 11-02-2006 7:42 PM CACTUSJACKmankin has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 113 of 157 (360930)
11-02-2006 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by eggasai
11-02-2006 5:48 AM


Nothing in any of the scientific literature suggests that a mutation a million nucleotides/base pairs long is the same as a single one.
I'm not a geneticist and I understand where you went wrong here. Each and every gene has different lengths, they even vary from person to person for similar genes as well.
So talking about mutations per gene or mutations per strand of DNA is not being very precise.
In order to be more precise you need to normalize the data, make it dimensionless or set it to some arbitrary standard, and they do this by dividing by base-pairs as a unit of length.
Within that unit length they then measure mutations per generation, and these rates can be used in a more univerally applicable way: it's more precise.
What it does NOT say is that every base pair mutates that amount every generation. Why not? indels, reversals, all the other ways and means that big chunks of DNA get swapped around are included in those figures.
What the measurement really means as I see it, is {mutations per generation} in a standard arbitrary unit length of DNA. I'll be happy to have one of the professionals correct me if this is wrong, but that is what I get from reading it.
... just like for years I was told that chimpanzee and human DNA are 99% identical. Now I know for a fact it's no more then 95% simular ...
... and once again I note that the actual number, to whatever decimal point you care to take the argument, is irrelevant compared to the relative relationships between species.
Chimpanzees are the closest living relative we have no matter what the actual number is, because all the others have less in common, and any changes to the numbers for chimps-humans will also affect the numbers for othes-human.
Chimps are also closer related to humans that various species in other genera\families, and this is because they really are hominids.
You dismiss the genetic information with some mumbo-jumbo personal interpretation of the data, which you then organize to show that you can't believe that it could happen. This is called a straw man argument followed by an argument from incredulity - both logical fallacies.
But you also fail to address the parallel information from fossil evidence showing gradual changes accumulating over time in the size of the human brain, as well as evidence for accelerated sexual selection: your only answer was your claim that your interpretation of the genetic data makes the fossil evidence wrong.
It doesn't work that way. Your interpretation fails to explain the fossil evidence, therefore IT is wrong.
I don't like being lied to and something else, I wouldn't lie like that to anyone unless ...
... unless you are wrong and you just don't realize it.
Dawkin's famously lists four causes for this kind of attitude: stupidity, ignorance, malice and delusion.
Message 103
I went through something simular with Liberal theology and finally realized ...
... that this has nothing to do with gentics or human brain evolution?
Or is it really indicative of your failure to {see\know\understand} what other people are saying? That you start with the conclusion that you are right, and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, that whatever they post that doesn't fit your personal interpretation is an error.
I'm going to put together a blog and maybe start a website where Christians can learn about ...
... your personal perversion of science.
That's the wonderful thing about the internet: anyone can post whatever opinion they have as if it were fact. The ultimate anarchy of expression.
It still does not make you right, nor does it address the errors in your thinking. Denial never does. Ignorance of the evidence never does.
Like I told you guys, I'm not intimadated, ...
... you're just venting your personal emotional response to being unable to deal with the facts.
But how was intimidation ever the intention eh? Or is that what you thought you were doing here? Certainly that attitude matches your abusive, arrogant and unyielding behavior.
I don't know how many hours I have spent on the thread but ...
... but it is miniscule compared to a lifetime of learning.
And the length of time spent is irrelevant when there is incomplete comprehension.
... now I not only think main stream science is wrong or willfully ignorant, I think their lying through they're teeth.
A world-wide conspiracy aligned against you? Or delusion
Poor fella.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added info

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by eggasai, posted 11-02-2006 5:48 AM eggasai has not replied

  
eggasai
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 157 (360931)
11-02-2006 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Hyroglyphx
11-02-2006 6:40 PM


Re: Theater of the mind
quote:
Drop me an invite. My wife is working on a similar site
I'd love to see it when she's done. Mine will probably take a while but I'll let you know where to find it when I have something comprehensive up and running. I'd like to see creationists network a little and share without the constant barage of propaganda and misinformation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-02-2006 6:40 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by jar, posted 11-02-2006 7:33 PM eggasai has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 115 of 157 (360935)
11-02-2006 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by eggasai
11-02-2006 7:25 PM


Re: Theater of the mind
I'd like to see creationists network a little and share without the constant barage of propaganda and misinformation.
Yeah, it's a bitch when folk point out your errors and ignorance isn't it?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by eggasai, posted 11-02-2006 7:25 PM eggasai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by eggasai, posted 11-02-2006 7:38 PM jar has not replied

  
eggasai
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 157 (360938)
11-02-2006 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by NosyNed
11-02-2006 5:53 PM


Re: Remedial reading for egg
It's the number of mutations (2) per 100,000,000 base pairs (10^-8), per diploid generation (a generation of 20-25 yrs). I am very familar with the formula, I have been taking to this guy for some time now.
Let me see if I have your logic down here, bp is mutation events not base pairs and generation is plural not singlular (whatever that is supposed to mean). You just agreed with a statement that obviously contradicts itself. It is impossible for bp to mean mutational events and base pairs at the same time. It makes no sense that the formula would call put bp where the number of base pairs is ambiguise.
How many times are you guys going have to get caught before you stop telling the same whooper over and over?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by NosyNed, posted 11-02-2006 5:53 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2006 8:32 PM eggasai has not replied
 Message 120 by sfs, posted 11-02-2006 10:52 PM eggasai has replied

  
eggasai
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 157 (360939)
11-02-2006 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by jar
11-02-2006 7:33 PM


Re: Theater of the mind
quote:
Yeah, it's a bitch when folk point out your errors and ignorance isn't it?
Yea and it's telling when they get caught in a lie and just keep on telling it like nothing ever happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by jar, posted 11-02-2006 7:33 PM jar has not replied

  
CACTUSJACKmankin
Member (Idle past 6273 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-22-2006


Message 118 of 157 (360941)
11-02-2006 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by CACTUSJACKmankin
11-02-2006 7:11 PM


Re: Theater of the mind
I have only a passing knowledge of genetics and protein sequencing so i did a quick google scholar search and found a paper on the sequencing of a gene that contributes to brain growth.
Here's the link:
Evolution of the Human ASPM Gene, a Major Determinant of Brain Size | Genetics | Oxford Academic
Here's the title:
Evolution of the Human ASPM Gene, a Major Determinant of Brain Size
I'll try to interperet as best as I can. The gene they work on is ASPM, abnormal spindle-like microcephaly associated. They give a figure Dn/Ds which is the ratio of nonsynonymous nucleotide substitutions to synonymousu substitutions. It is used to compare humans, chimpanzees, and orangutans, the numbers are 1.03, 0.66, and 0.43 respectively. I really don't understand the rest of it, maybe someone else can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 11-02-2006 7:11 PM CACTUSJACKmankin has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 119 of 157 (360967)
11-02-2006 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by eggasai
11-02-2006 7:36 PM


no answers yet
regarding Message 97 and Message 113
Edited by RAZD, : unnecessary comments
Edited by RAZD, : changed my mind, intentionally ...

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by eggasai, posted 11-02-2006 7:36 PM eggasai has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 120 of 157 (361003)
11-02-2006 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by eggasai
11-02-2006 7:36 PM


Re: Remedial reading for egg
quote:
It's the number of mutations (2) per 100,000,000 base pairs (10^-8), per diploid generation (a generation of 20-25 yrs). I am very familar with the formula, I have been taking to this guy for some time now.
That's reasonably close to correct. (I don't know what "diploid" is doing in there -- a generation is the interval between parent and offspring, whether they're diploid or not.)
So now look at what you go on to say:
quote:
Let me see if I have your logic down here, bp is mutation events not base pairs and generation is plural not singlular (whatever that is supposed to mean).
Look back at what you wrote above. The mutation rate is the number of mutations. The "per" parts then tell you how often the mutations occur -- the number for each generation that passes, and the number for each base pair you have in your genome. That's what "per" means. You measure rotation rates in revolutions per minute -- how many revolutions happen in each minute. RPM is not measured in minutes, is it? If you put an old 45 on a record player, does "45 RPM" mean it lasts 45 minutes? If you plant one seed per foot, are seeds measured in feet? Your argument here is just ridiculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by eggasai, posted 11-02-2006 7:36 PM eggasai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by eggasai, posted 11-02-2006 11:49 PM sfs 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