Genetics and Human Brain Evolution

quote:

---

Naughty sfs!!
Barging in here, without as much as a 'by your leave', and scaring off our creationists.

​

You're hardly ever in, you don't call to let us know where you are but you turn up like the proverbial bad penny to frighten the latest squeaky rubber creationist bit substitute, for our champing horse like teeth, back into the undergrowth.

---

That's me, the scourge of creationists, the terror of CvE boards everywhere. I ride into town: IDists cower, and creationsts head gibbering and howling for the hills, never(*) to be seen again. In my wake I leave famine and desolation.Oh, and I almost forgot . . . Bwa ha ha.(*) "Never" in the sense of "not for at least twenty minutes".

quote:

---

I am most cross with you.

---

Then my work here is done.

---

Barmaid! Bring me stronger ale, and some plump, succulent babies to eat.
-- Olaf the troll

I was just waiting around for you to respond again. You were saying that bp doesn't mean base pairs and now you would like to explain that obvious contradiction with a metaphore of sorts.This is what I actually said:

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.

---

This formula comes to about 120 mutations per generation, to which you insist I take out the diploid. Notice we are talking about 120 base pairs per 20 years.The formula is 2 x 10^-8/bp/generation. You are telling me that bp means mutation events, not a count of base pairs. It is altogether untrue and an obvious contradiction. You retort:

quote:

---

Look back at what you wrote above. The mutation rate is the number of mutations.

---

Which comes to 2 per 100 Mb.

quote:

---

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.

---

2 per 100 Mb will net you around 60 per generation, estimated at 20 years.

quote:

---

That's what "per" means.

---

That's right, bp per generation.

quote:

---

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?

---

45 rounds per minute...got it.

quote:

---

If you plant one seed per foot, are seeds measured in feet? Your argument here is just ridiculous.

---

My argument has turned into a rethorical question that you cannot answer. If the mutation rate indicates 60 mutations per generation and there are 350,000 generations (est 20 yrs) then how do the respective genomes accumulate 125 Mb?In your own words:

quote:

---

Total divergence

​

For starters, we should be able to predict how different the genomes should be. The seven million years of evolution in each lineage represents about 350,000 generations in each (assuming 20 years per generation). How many mutations happen per generation? Estimating mutation rates is not easy (at least without assuming common descent): it is hard to find a few changed nucleotides out of 3 billion that have not changed. By studying new cases of genetic diseases, individuals whose parents' do not have the disease, however, it is possible to identify and count new mutations, at least in a small number of genes. Using this technique, it has been estimated[1] that the single-base substitution rate for humans is approximately 1.7 x 10^-8 substitutions/nucleotide/generation, that is, 17 changes per billion nucleotides. That translates into ~100 new mutations for every human birth. (17 x 3, for the 3 billion nucleotides in the genome, x 2 for the two genome copies we each carry). At that rate, in 350,000 generations a copy of the human genome should have accumulated about 18 million mutations, while the chimpanzee genome should have accumulated a similar number.

​

The evolutionary prediction, then, is that there should be roughly 36 million single-base differences between humans and chimpanzees. The actual number could be determined when both the chimpanzee and human genomes had been completely sequenced. When the two genomes were compared[2], thirty-five million substitutions were found, in remarkably good agreement with the evolutionary expectation. Fortuitously good agreement, in fact: the uncertainty on most of the numbers used in the estimate is large enough that it took luck to come that close.

---

Despite the fact that it has been clearly demonstrated that divergence is 100 Mb greater then previous estimates, only the single substitutions are accounted for. No one was predicting that the indels would dwarf the single nucleotide substitutions, that's why Time lied, Nature lied and you said bp does not mean base pair.I'll see you on CF, I was just waiting for you to respond to that allegation and apparently you can't.

Hi eggasai,350,000 generations? It is 350,000 generations from the human to an unknown prehistoric ape, not 350,000 from the human to the chimp.Think about it. The common ancestor lived 7 million years ago. This means that 7 million years ago, two lineages diverged which since then have BOTH been accumulating mutations each generation. Let's assume that 20 years is a reasonable estimate for the historical generation time. The lineage leading up to chimps thus contains 350,000 generations-worth of mutations. And the lineage leading up to the human also contains 350,000 generations-worth of mutations. Hence when we compare the chimp to the human, we are talking about 700,000 generations-worth of accumulated mutations.This has been pointed out repeatedly over the course of this thread.MickEdited by mick, : No reason given.Edited by mick, : No reason given.

Oh for Pete's sake, how many times!!I think Sfs was wrong to give you credit for correctly representing the formula.It is actually 0.00000002 mutations per base pair per generation.By associating the x10^-8 with the subsequent bp you seem to be eliding over the '/'. Your formulation would be
'2 mutations / 1x10^-8 bp / 1 generation'
This will give you the same rate but in neither case are the mutations measured in bps nor are bps treated as equivalent to mutations.The only way your interpretation would make any sense would be if the formula was '2x10^-8 bp/generation', which no one has ever suggested as a formula.Can you actually show anything, other than this formula which totally fails to support your contention, which suggests that Sfs or anybody else other than you is trying to say bp means anything other than base pairs? The worst you could accuse Sfs of doing is assuming that when discussing the mutaation rate you would understand the unit to be mutations and therefore not explicitly specifying '2x10^-8 mutations/bp/generation'.TTFN,WK

I don't know. I haven't been following this thread. The Eggasai post I respnded to caught my eye, so I thought I respond. I haven't been engaged on this thread, but now my attention has been piqued. I'll take a look at a few post to get an understanding of the argument. The jab has less to do with immorality than it did with an amoral outlook. I was merely pointing out that the irreligious have no reason to stay honest when there are no repercussions other than one's pride. No, admittedly I don't. But like I said, now my attention is piqued. I simply saw that one post and thought it humorous. I know that some evo's can become rather cantankerous in trying to prove their position, but on this occasion I only read that one post. I've quite a few of my own posts on other threads that need my attention, but I will try to engage in the convo.

---

"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." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

You know what? Cram it up your ass. We promote a scientific theory because it's the theory best supported by the evidence.Period. If you think that makes us serial-killers and pedophiles, that somehow we lack "moral fiber", you're an idiot.You don't know any of us, NJ. You know absolutely nothing about us, and for you to level an accusation of immorality is a base slander, deeply offensive in every way. And the only reason you get away with it is because of the lax standards creationists are explicitly held to. I'll probably get suspended for telling you this, but it's worth it for you to understand how inappropriate your comments are.And the fact that you'll be allowed to perpetuate these disguisting ad hominem while the rest of us will accept suspension or worse for defending ourselves will be all but ignored by you and Buzzsaw and Faith and all the rest of the ridiculous cut-and-run creationists who throw a huge pity party at the slightest suggestion that they be held to some kind of standard of civil conduct.I thought you had some potential to turn out to be a decent human being. Turns out you're as arrogant and presumptuous as the rest of the know-nothing nutballs. Now, if you'll excuse me, apparently I'm going to go eat a baby or something.

Oh. So when you leveled a sweeping charge of amorality against your opponents, you were doing so from a position of absolute ignorance.Gotcha. That doesn't exactly make it better, now does it?

quote:

---

No they don't, amino acids code for proteins, nucleotides are just the basic element of precise amino acid sequences

---

All I can say is....Wow...This is a prime example of what 'Google expertise' produces.The self-taught suffer doubly - they have both a poor teacher and a substandard education.

quote:

---

This will give you the same rate but in neither case are the mutations measured in bps...Can you actually show anything, other than this formula which totally fails to support your contention, which suggests that Sfs or anybody else other than you is trying to say bp means anything other than base pairs? The worst you could accuse Sfs of doing is assuming that when discussing the mutaation rate you would understand the unit to be mutations and therefore not explicitly specifying '2x10^-8 mutations/bp/generation'.

---

I don't think you are even trying to talk coherant here. This is what he said that left me without the slightest doubt that mainstream science lies about the evidence:"No, like counting all the base pairs in the indels and applying them to the mutation rate as measured in mutation events, which is what you've just done here. 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."He says, '2 x 10^-8/bp/generation is the number of mutation events, not the number of base pairs. He says that straight up and flat out and you act as if it is either the gospel truth or it just doesn't matter that bp in this formula simply means base pair.When my daughters were very one of them said the other had pooped in her pullup. That is how she explained the mess in it. The mutation rate does not account for the level of divergance, the mutation rate for viruses does not account for the level of divergence, nothing sane explains 145 Mb of divergence. What is the response of two professional scientists? The bp can means base pair but it doesn't measure base pairs.

A mere glance at this thread would show you that there must be some reason other than "pride" that explains why irreligious people are so honest.After all, if pride alone made one truthful, then eggsai's monumental vanity would have kept him from reciting the ludicrous and pitiable string of falsehoods which you can read on this thread.

And this is true. It is the number of mutations, per base pair, per generation.That's why it says "2 x 10^-8/bp/generation".It is not "the number of base pairs".If you are genuinely unable to understand that, then ordinarily you would have my sympathy. However, in this case you have forfeited it by your revolting and hysterical accusations of dishonesty levelled at anyone and everyone who tries to give you the basic education that you so desperately need.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

What the hell are you trying to say?Do you know what 'per' actually means, you seemed to only a few posts ago but in this particular context you seem selectively blind.For every 1 bp in a genetic sequence there is a mutational rate of 2x10^-8 mutations every generation. The base pair is one of the metrics against which the frequency of mutation is being measured the other is the time in generations. Sure it can when you are measuring the length of a sequence, it even could be used as a measure of the number of mutations if you were talking about a homogenous set of mutations of a fixed length, but when you are discussing a mutation rate for a heterogenous set of mutations varying in length from 1bp to >300bp then base pairs is not a unit which will be useful to measure how many mutations occurred.If I tell you how long a sequence of DNA was prior to and subsequent to mutation could you tell me how many mutations had occurred? Could you tell me if I told you what number of bps were divergent?TTFN,WK

How ever have I come to my conclusions???? I know what you tell me. I know that you have no real regard for morality, you've said so yourself. You put yourself in an indefensible position by asserting moral relativism, but give no satisfying reasons for the assumption. Aside from which, I did't say you or anyone here was immoral. I even clarified for WK, and said, amoral. If morals are merely relative and subject to your whims and your discretion, then it doesn't really exist. If they don't actually exist, then what are you mad? Get it, now? Am I so far off-base? If you're offended then you must be accepting that on some level their is some truth to it. Lying has its advantages in the natural world, does it not? So, if there is nothing keeping you accountable, then why should I assume that you or anyone from your ilk would view truth in a respectful manner? Maybe you can explain that to me. Crash, do you see anyone else throwing a tantrum besides yourself? I was talking to Eggasai, and last time I checked, I was protected by the First Amendment to do that. You are certainly welcome to argue your points, but don't say someone else used ad hom, (which is a "personal" attack), when I have not mentioned one persons name. You kind of undermine your whole argument by throwing for yourself quite the elaborate pity party and call me, specifically, names.So, please, calm down, do some breathing techniques, take some Zoloft... I get it. You don't like me. But just think, I provide for you meaningful entertainment. Surely there is something worthy in that, aye.... What does that mean to a primate like me? What is "worthy" mean to an ape? Some more of your sort-of-kinda morals? Gotta be something in this world.

---

"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." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

That's an outright lie. I've never said anything of the sort.This is your "moral fiber"? Lying about people? Because we're not liars, like you? It's hard for you to imagine someone who acts morally because it's the right thing to do, not because they're afraid somebody bigger and tougher will punish them for it?If you have to be bullied into doing the right thing, exactly how moral are you? Simply judging by the fact that you've got no problem telling outright lies about me, not very, I'd say. Oh, I'm sorry. I keep forgetting that I'm an atheist, and as such, I should just shut the hell up when arrogant theists like yourself decide they're going to accuse us of being immoral. How silly of me to forget that I have absolutely no right to defend myself from sucrrilous charges. God forbid a Christian be held to any kind of standard of civil conduct; no, expecting such a person to be polite is tantamount to an infringment of their constitutional rights.I'm sorry, NJ, but I just looked up the First Amendment and I don't see anything about a right to be a pompous douchebag whom nobody can criticize. Can you point it out to me? I did like you. I thought you were a person who, even though he had a lot of stupid ideas about atheists, could be persuaded that we're also people, too.So why, apropos of nothing, you chose to level offensive, scurrilous charges that atheists "lack moral fiber", is a mystery to me. I really thought we were civil participants in a debate. What on Earth did any of the rest of us do to be so insulted by you?

This is the most terrifying thing about fundies.Their dogma reduces them to a state where they cannot even imagine an unselfish action; they cannot even imagine a person who prefers good to evil; they cannot even imagine a person who prefers truth to falsehood. Not only do they themselves lose these preferences, but they cannot even admit that other people do not share their sociopathic attitudes.Most wicked people know that they have fallen short of virtue: fundies don't even know that virtue exists.What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the approval of his imaginary friend and lose his soul?