The Origin of Novelty

LOL!! Do some exceptions in sexual identity (eg hermaphrodites) mean there is no such thing as male and female? Do some possible theoretical grey areas in defining baramins necessarily mean there are no baramins?That line of reasoning is stupid. (I'm not saying you are stupid, but the line of reasoning is stupid, I am expecting you to never back down on this point, but your reasoning lacks any validity whatsoever). Lol, that list is a perfect illustration of design groupings. Similar organisms with similar habits/phenotypes/genotypes will require similar breathing abilities. To me its a perfect example of design similarities, just as you may interpret the evidence as an example of evolved similarities. There is nothing there that even vaguely contradicts the similarities you would expect a designer to place in similar organisms. That is true. I will be going back to the Dates and Dating thread soon to deal with the dating fallacies demonstrated there. There would need to be about 2000 mutations per generation to even get to a half percent variation in base pairs over 6500 years. Not even the most excessive estimations of mutation rates would predict that type of variation per generation. So my 99.5% is a pretty safe definition of a baramin if it so clearly separates two organisms famous for their similarity.The fact that there are only at most about 30 point mutations per generation , and yet the difference in base pairs between the chimp and human is about 4% (120 million base pair differences) means that there needs to be about 2 million generations since our common ancestor. At a conservative breeding generation of 10 years , this means that there needs to be 20 MILLION years since the common ancestor split. (evolutionists claim about 6 million years). The joke about this set of figures, is that it works on the assumption that most point mutation of the 30 mutations per generation are beneficial and have become useful parts of both genomes. The reality is that there just has not been enough time for evolution to work, the chimp and human need a lot longer than 20 million years at current beneficial mutations rates to account for the useful differences of the 120 million differences between the two genomes.This is a strong point favoring baramins over evolution. Mere differences? They certainly are good enough to determine baramins and are a clear genetic gap, why are you unsatisfied with that measurement?Its pretty easily defined. Humans are one baramin. The genus canis is another baramin. The genus felidae is another baramin. (Obviously only where the genomes in that genus are closely matching, its possible taxonomists have wrongly categorized some species within a genus). Genomes have to be completely sequenced and completely compared across base pairs like the chimpanzee and human , before we can make any accurate conclusions.

quote:

---

LOL!! Do some exceptions in sexual identity (eg hermaphrodites) mean there is no such thing as male and female? Do some possible theoretical grey areas in defining baramins necessarily mean there are no baramins?

---

We're not talking about theoretical grey areas or rare exceptions. We're talking about the fact that the genome data shows NO clear examples of baramins at all.

quote:

---

That line of reasoning is stupid. (I'm not saying you are stupid, but the line of reasoning is stupid, I am expecting you to never back down on this point, but your reasoning lacks any validity whatsoever).

---

Then its good for me that that line of reasoning comes from you, and not from me.

quote:

---

Lol, that list is a perfect illustration of design groupings. Similar organisms with similar habits/phenotypes/genotypes will require similar breathing abilities. To me its a perfect example of design similarities, just as you may interpret the evidence as an example of evolved similarities. There is nothing there that even vaguely contradicts the similarities you would expect a designer to place in similar organisms.

---

Except for the fact that the pattern of the differences is exactly what we would expect given common descent and if all you can offer is unlikely ad hoc alternatives, then I'm afraid it stands as evidence.

quote:

---

There would need to be about 2000 mutations per generation to even get to a half percent variation in base pairs over 6500 years. Not even the most excessive estimations of mutation rates would predict that type of variation per generation. So my 99.5% is a pretty safe definition of a baramin if it so clearly separates two organisms famous for their similarity.

---

Only if you assume a relatively short timespan. And given longer the difference would increase. This is not a good line of evidence, especially given the weight of evidence against your 6500 years. And it certainly isn't the clear distinction that would signal special creation.

quote:

---

The fact that there are only at most about 30 point mutations per generation , and yet the difference in base pairs between the chimp and human is about 4% (120 million base pair differences) means that there needs to be about 2 million generations since our common ancestor. At a conservative breeding generation of 10 years , this means that there needs to be 20 MILLION years since the common ancestor split. (evolutionists claim about 6 million years

---

You forget that differences accumulate in both lineages, halving the time. And you also forget that point mutations are not the only mutations - insertions and deletions can affect multiple bases with a single mutation, and they are not that uncommon.

quote:

---

Mere differences? They certainly are good enough to determine baramins and are a clear genetic gap, why are you unsatisfied with that measurement?

---

If the differences are mostly small and non-functional it's hardly the sort of gap we would expect to see between baramins. That's why counting differences without any further analysis is hopelessly inadequate.

quote:

---

Its pretty easily defined. Humans are one baramin. The genus canis is another baramin. The genus felidae is another baramin. (Obviously only where the genomes in that genus are closely matching, its possible taxonomists have wrongly categorized some species within a genus). Genomes have to be completely sequenced and completely compared across base pairs like the chimpanzee and human , before we can make any accurate conclusions.

---

The point is not to define some arbitrary count of differences. The point is to find the clear differences that point to the existence of baramins. I'm still waiting to see even one example.

We have cited examples of just that, the pocket mouse example being one. How is dark fur deleterious to the mice living in the black lava fields? Why do you exclude dark fur from this list?

Dark fur in pocket mice.We could also cite the DNA differences between humans and chimps which contain mutations that are beneficial to one of those species. Do you really think that all of those differences cause both chimps and humans to be a diseased form of their common ancestor? Evidence please. You are just making stuff up now.

How do you know that it is within the kind or baramin if you are have not given us the criteria for determining baramins and kinds? So are you saying that the common ancestor of chimps and humans had all of the DNA variation found in a combined chimp and human genome?

Well, surely even you would concede that in a few short years you aren't going to get macroevolution.My argument that new phenotypes require reduced genetic diversity shows what a baramin or Kind is as the development of new phenotypes ultimately leads to a point beyond which further (micro)evolution can't occur. That's the end point of the Kind or baramin. It's a functional definition. The very processes of evolution lead ultimately to the inability to evolve further defining the outer limits of the Kind or baramin. I've only barely sketched this idea out here, though it's been argued further on a few other threads in the past and MAY possibly get argued further on the thread that will be promoted soon. We do not share a comman ancestor.

People who preach that Christ was The Truth seem unable to give up their faith in their personal interpretations of Genesis whether confronted with evidence or not.Is this merely faith in one's personal and ever more peculiar point of view?The FACT that we can SEE the fused 2nd chromosomes usually separated from one another in the Apes which are 99% the same in their gentic make-up fails to sway you.Here we SEE an actual example of a macro-evolution from Apoes to a whole new branch of humans that lead to 22 now extinct humans in our own ascent, yet you continue to sell this ridiculous and anti-Bible insistance that Science lies and you don't.....
"Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes."According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.Because the fused chromosome is unique to humans and is fixed, the fusion must have occurred... before modern humans spread around the world, that is, between 6 million and ~1 million years ago (Mya; Chen and Li 2001; Yu et al. 2001) (Fig.5).References:
1.Fan Y, et al. Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions on other human chromosomes. Genome Research 2002, volume 12, pages 1651-1662.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

Is macroevolution the production of a new kind or baramin? How do you determine if macroevolution has occurred, according to your criteria? Again, we are right back to the pocket mouse example. The dark fur was demonstrated to be produced by new mutations, not a reduction in genetic diversity. I have also started a new topic dealing with antibiotic resistance that, once promoted, would be a great place for you to further discuss these topics. Of course, I plan to participate in your thread as well. How does the process of mutation limit evolution? 200,000 shared ERV's say otherwise. We do share a common ancestor, so you need to fit this into your model.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

If you ignore the fusion as a hybridization which accomplishes macro-evolution immediately,...... consider the rapid Foxes to Dogs experiments occuring now in Russian Laboratories which take place in only a few generations:

We determine the macro evolution by seeing that one previous species is now accompanied by a new species related to the original species, but different genetically and in kind.Where we had only apes before, man appeared thereafter.We determine that the fused chromosomes are actually two diferent ones, cemented togather in the middle of the one set, where the beginning of the missing Ape Chromosome can be identified by the teleomeres which oinly appear on the ends of chromosome,... but here, are fused inside the other chromosome.hence, it was once the other Ape chromosome, and the macro evolution was us.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

Just thought you'd concede that getting from one species to another according to evolution doesn't happen in one lifetime. Not sure why you won't.On the basis of my argument it can't occur, it never occurs. Evolution comes to a screeching halt while the Kind is still obviously the Kind. Or baramin (I'm not used to that term myself but I assume it's the same thing. Seems to be.) I'm saying there is this built in limitation to evolution, that all you can ever get is the mixing and remixing of the genetic material of the Kind and at the far ends of breeding lines you can't get any further variation because of reduced genetic diversity. This can even sometimes be complete genetic depletion like that of the cheetah with the creature's genome being made up of mostly homozygous genes or "fixed loci" and at that point you've reached the end of evolution. I expect this to get argued out in some thoroughness when my thread is promoted. But for now all I'll say is that even if it is a mutation, which I doubt, but say it is, even then what you have is an allele, that's what a mutation produces, right? So this new allele is a mutation that occurred in what, one individual?It still has to get passed on to its progeny then, and presumably THEN it gets selected as the light-furred individuals don't survive while the dark-furred ones proliferate.See, it really doesn't matter if the allele for dark fur was a naturally occurring one that got selected and passed on, or a mutated allele that got selected and passed on. Reduced genetic diversity is the RESULT of the selection process, and that will be the case whether it is a mutation or a naturally occurring allele that is selected, because the other alleles for other colors will be eliminated from the population. THAT's reduced genetic diversity. It doesn't "produce" anything, it's the result of selection. OK. This question doesn't make sense according to the way I look at all this but perhaps it can get discussed on the new thread. In my model evolutionary change comes to a natural stopping point long before anything like a new species could possibly result.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Populations evolve, not individuals. But, if this new allele is beneficial and is successfully passed down to some offspring, it will likely give them differential reproductive success. ie. They are more successful at breeding and thus passing the new allele to further generations. Reduced genetic diversity is NOT the result. The light fur is recessive. So now, you have a dominant gene for dark fur (call it D) and a recessive gene for light fur (d). The gene for light fur may not be expressed such as in a dark furred mouse with both genes (Dd). If the recessive gene isn't somehow wiped out in the population (which would probably be some kind of close to extinction event - ex. bottleneck) then the mice will most likely retain that variation of the light fur gene in their population and it will be a hidden variation.Hidden variation happens a lot.Edit: Just to be clear. Just because a gene is beneficial doesn't mean that it is dominant (ex. blue eyes) and just like the genes that determine eye color, they can be complex and not so straightforward as in my example. Gregor Mendel made his choice of peas because they were not complex.Edited by DBlevins, : Added for clarification

You make bold statements , but in what manner is the intelligent design view of cytochrome c sequences more unlikely than the common descent view. Kindly enlighten me with some evidence for your point please. Explain to me how these sequences show common descent more than groupings according to intelligent design for organisms that have similar needs. The amazing thing about these sequences is that although many of these organisms have supposedly evolved separately for over 300 million years, they ALL have a phenylalanine at position 10, a histidine at position 18, a proline at position 30 and a methionine at position 80. This positively SCREAMS intelligent design , the concept of all these completely different organisms maintaining these exact positions over 300 million years of evolving compared to 6500 years of evolving is ridiculous and I will be using this study as evidence for baramins from now on.
view.http://chemistry.umeche.maine.edu/CHY431/Evolve2.html You say this is not a good line of evidence. I agree with you because I was not presenting this as evidence. I was explaining the reasoning why a 99.5 percent similarity would be a logical test for baramins according to the 6500 year view. If you look at my figures, I definitely included the thinking that differences accumulate in both lineages. The figure without taking into account the two lineages would be 40 million. If you checked my math you would have seen I used the figure 20 million years instead of 40 million years to take the mutations in both lineages into account.Regarding current rates of multiple base mutations and point mutations, have you got any backing for the average ~100 plus base point differences that would have had to accumulate over EVERY generation over the last 600 000 generations over the last 6 million years? I've done this, I don't know what more you want. I explained why I used the .5% difference, this is based on 6500 years of mutations unlikely to ever produce more than a .5% genotype difference within the same baramin. For example the genus canus shows huge similarities in genome sequencing between species, greater than 99.5 percent. This shows that even though there are a few species (wolves, coyotes, dogs, dingoes) and some cannot interbreed and large varieties in phenotype are observable, these are all from one baramin, due to the extreme genotype similarities. As opposed to , for example, the Tasmanian wolf that has a similar phenotype to the genus canus but large genotype differences (more than .5% difference) and is therefore from a different baramin to dogs/wolves. This % is not arbitrary, even if its possible to be further refined.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You make bold statements , but in what manner is the intelligent design view of cytochrome c sequences more unlikely than the common descent view. Kindly enlighten me with some evidence for your point please.

---

I've already done so. The pattern fits the expectations of evolution, while the baramin hypothesis produces no such expectations.

quote:

---

The amazing thing about these sequences is that although many of these organisms have supposedly evolved separately for over 300 million years, they ALL have a phenylalanine at position 10, a histidine at position 18, a proline at position 30 and a methionine at position 80. This positively SCREAMS intelligent design , the concept of all these completely different organisms maintaining these exact positions over 300 million years of evolving compared to 6500 years of evolving is ridiculous and I will be using this study as evidence for baramins from now on.

---

Cytochrome C is useful for these studies precisely because it is highly conserved. If these particular elements are essential to the function then of course they will be retained. If they are not then, what reason would the hypothetical designer have to make them the same while others vary ?

quote:

---

You say this is not a good line of evidence. I agree with you because I was not presenting this as evidence. I was explaining the reasoning why a 99.5 percent similarity would be a logical test for baramins according to the 6500 year view.

---

In other words you failed to give me what I asked for.

quote:

---

If you look at my figures, I definitely included the thinking that differences accumulate in both lineages. The figure without taking into account the two lineages would be 40 million. If you checked my math you would have seen I used the figure 20 million years instead of 40 million years to take the mutations in both lineages into account.

---

OK

quote:

---

Regarding current rates of multiple base mutations and point mutations, have you got any backing for the average ~100 plus base point differences that would have had to accumulate over EVERY generation over the last 600 000 generations over the last 6 million years?

---

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I dare say that you can find details in the papers estimating the divergence time.

quote:

---

I've done this, I don't know what more you want

---

Essentially a "mammalian" baramin that falls well outside the nested tree of taxonomy and genetics - or even just one if the two. If the baramin hypothesis were true we'd expect to see rather a lot. So why don't we see even one?

I think the mistake often made in the creationist/evolution debate is in the terminology itself. There should be two separate debates, the abiogenesis/creationist debate; and then the baramin/common ancestor debate. Each party's view on the first debate on where life came from is unproven and is based on faith without evidence. (a sense of certainty when the scientific evidence is lacking). These arguments are subjective , get nowhere, and normally result in trading insults and stirring (eg its often said that atheists or alternatively creationists are living in a fairytale world)If we stick to comparing what happened since life appeared, and compare the recent baramin view to the lengthy common ancestor view, with consensus on most currently observed evolutionary processes I don't see how the theory on baramins has any extra unevidenced processes compared to the theory of a common ancestor.
I feel the weakness of the common ancestor view is the lack of evidence for additional coding genes being added to genomes over time, this favors devolution from baramins, rather then increased protein-coding complexity over time as proposed by the common ancestor view. So in essence the common ancestor view has an extra process that is difficult to find evidence for, the theory of a single common ancestor over long timeframes therefore lacks parsimony compared to the baramin view. The baramin view clearly fits all available evidence, complex organisms showing recent divergence and minor speciation. Its simple, and its processes are proven and observable. You seem to be projecting unnecessary detail onto intelligent design.There is a general rule (maybe some exceptions) that placental animals require a higher degree of social behaviour. This is due to the fact that the pregnant mother is vulnerable. The mother/offspring bond is stronger, the nurturing is longer, the brain is bigger. These placental animals are highly adaptable, because new behaviour patterns can be passed onto offspring with training, for example feeding patterns are not 100 percent instinct , due to the interest the placental mother takes in the well being of the offspring. this interest is due to maternal bonds having formed in the womb. Thus intelligent design divides groups of organisms into matching groups of traits, the traits complement one another, and the traits come in matching sets. Although there are some strange organisms out there, generally they are divided into clear groupings of features, very much like car manufacturers make vehicles in "ranges". The 4x4 range, the family car range, the sports car range. It makes no sense to place a 4x4 chassis in a family car, or sports car speeds of over 150 mph in a 4x4. This is uneconomical waste, and the same type of rules apply to intelligent design in biology, no wastage and sets of features come in groupings that make sense. On the other hand there can be some features that are relatively common as evidenced by the following study being discussed on this thread: http://chemistry.umeche.maine.edu/CHY431/Evolve2.html
Across many organisms ranging from plants to mammals to bacteria to fish, in similar sequences you always find that there is "a phenylalanine at position 10, a histidine at 18, a proline at 30 and a methionine at 80"Since a lot of these organisms supposedly split some 300 million years ago or more, what are the chances of them retaining their perfect relative positions for 300 million years? Of course evolutionists do have an explanation but intelligent design certainly appears more realistic (not expecting you to agree, but its an interesting thought what an impartial observer would see in these widespread matching sequences)