Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can the standard "Young Earth Creationist" model be falsified by genetics alone?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 161 (707424)
09-27-2013 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by bluegenes
09-27-2013 4:09 AM


Could you clarify that question please? Do you mean how would we compare living people to people from archaeological sites?
No. I'm saying that if you compare a dude with his grandpa, would you not have to assume that more of the differences from the reference belonged to the dude than to his grandpa?
ABE:
Sorry, I worded that incorrectly. I should have asked the following:
Ifyou compare a dude with his grandpa, would you not have to assume that most of the differences from each other belonged to the dude and not his grandpa? You wouldn't just divide the numbers by 2 and then assign them to each.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by bluegenes, posted 09-27-2013 4:09 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by bluegenes, posted 09-27-2013 12:45 PM NoNukes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 107 of 161 (707460)
09-27-2013 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by NoNukes
09-27-2013 9:08 AM


Medieval stone age
NoNukes writes:
If you compare a dude with his grandpa, would you not have to assume that most of the differences from each other belonged to the dude and not his grandpa? You wouldn't just divide the numbers by 2 and then assign them to each.
Well, yes. You'd assign all (germline mutations) to the grandson. The thing about the non-recombining area of the Y, and the beauty of it for this kind of thing, is that the grandson gets his grandfather's exact chromosome, plus whatever mutations have occurred in the two generation transfers. So, in the Noah hypothesis, we all have his chromosome altered by whatever mutations have happened on our paternal lines since. If we have a reasonable estimate of the mutation rate, we have a fairly good molecular clock. We can also make nested Y hierarchies like the one in the chart I've been using, and they tell us interesting things.
For example, the "G" haplogroup with its specific defining marker mutation starts about 1/3 of the time back to Noah. A sub-haplogroup of this was common in Europe in the stone age, and is found frequently in sites that are undeniably neolithic by the artefacts found in them. So, the YECs cannot deny this. Dating or no dating they are definitely stone age.
On the 4,500 year old Noah hypothesis, these would be 1500 years old or less, so we end up with stone age people in Europe after the decline of the Roman Empire, which makes me laugh.
tzi, the famous iceman is in this haplogroup.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2013 9:08 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2013 1:47 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 108 of 161 (707481)
09-27-2013 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by bluegenes
09-27-2013 12:45 PM


Re: Medieval stone age
On the 4,500 year old Noah hypothesis, these would be 1500 years old or less, so we end up with stone age people in Europe after the decline of the Roman Empire, which makes me laugh
Yep. That time compression is a mother.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by bluegenes, posted 09-27-2013 12:45 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2013 2:45 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 109 of 161 (707485)
09-27-2013 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by NoNukes
09-27-2013 1:47 PM


But wait! There's more...
On the 4,500 year old Noah hypothesis, these would be 1500 years old or less, so we end up with stone age people in Europe after the decline of the Roman Empire, which makes me laugh
Yep. That time compression is a mother.
That's nothing.
Mindspun's claim of the flood at the P-T boundary gives a time compression of about 57,000 times.
That means Jesus was walking around about two weeks ago.
That also means the black death occurred in Europe about this past Monday or Tuesday. (Hmmm. Maybe that's why I haven't heard from my cousins over there lately.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2013 1:47 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 110 of 161 (707507)
09-27-2013 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bluegenes
04-12-2013 1:23 PM


Mendelian principles account for all the diversity we see
Without getting into the papers you link, which at the moment are over my head or at least mystifying to me. and may remain so even if I spend more time on them -- we'll see--, I at least want to point out that the biblical time spans are quite sufficient to produce all the diversity we see on the basis of the simplest Mendelian genetics, which requires no mutations. I think I posted something to that effect here at one time, but if not I have posted on it at my blog::
Parker describes how all the varieties of humans and animals are easily accounted for by simple Mendelian genetics combining a given built-in array of genes for various traits. The example he gave was of two parents with "medium" or "average" skin color, expressed as AaBb, with the capital letters representing the darkest and the lower case the lightest, saying that EVERY shade of skin that we see on earth can be produced from those two parents, from the darkest African (AABB)to the lightest European (aabb). When you think of every other trait as genetically expressed by the same formula, it becomes clear that an enormous variety of combinations would produce an enormous variety of types or varieties or races -- of people and animals of all kinds -- which would become characteristic of groups as they migrated and became geographically isolated from one another.
I go on to discuss there, and I know I have also argued it here, that the bottleneck of the Flood is misconstrued in terms of what happens NOW when there is a bottleneck. But what we see now is the result of a great deal of genetic reduction in all genomes since the Flood so that with a bottleneck we often get extreme homozygosity such as is seen in the cheetah and the elephant seal, both products of severe bottleneck or founder effect. But 4300 years ago there should have been a lot more heterozygosity for all traits remaining in all genomes than we see now, so that although a bottleneck would severely reduce that heterozygosity and produce much more homozygosity it would not be anywhere near the extremes such a bottleneck can produce today, leaving a great deal of genetic diversity to play itself out.
So, when it is argued that you don't SEE the signs of a bottleneck that would have occurred at the time of the Flood all you are saying is you don't see the signs that we see occurring NOW, but a bottleneck then would not have produced those same signs. There would have been a lot more genetic diversity left.
Maybe I'll try to deal with the links eventually.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bluegenes, posted 04-12-2013 1:23 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by sfs, posted 09-27-2013 9:11 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 112 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2013 10:04 PM Faith has replied
 Message 113 by bluegenes, posted 09-28-2013 2:00 AM Faith has replied

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


(1)
Message 111 of 161 (707517)
09-27-2013 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Faith
09-27-2013 6:41 PM


Re: Mendelian principles account for all the diversity we see
quote:
Parker describes how all the varieties of humans and animals are easily accounted for by simple Mendelian genetics combining a given built-in array of genes for various traits. The example he gave was of two parents with "medium" or "average" skin color, expressed as AaBb, with the capital letters representing the darkest and the lower case the lightest, saying that EVERY shade of skin that we see on earth can be produced from those two parents, from the darkest African (AABB)to the lightest European (aabb). When you think of every other trait as genetically expressed by the same formula, it becomes clear that an enormous variety of combinations would produce an enormous variety of types or varieties or races -- of people and animals of all kinds -- which would become characteristic of groups as they migrated and became geographically isolated from one another.
What Parker doesn't mention is that this scenario would mean that we would see traits inherited together in large blocks. When you inherit a chromosome from your parent's two copies, you get roughly a single chunk of one copy and two chunk from the other; any traits coded on those chunks stay together. (Put a little more technically, there is roughly one crossover per chromosome arm.) If the Flood happened 180 generations ago, it's easy to estimate how many times each of your chromosomes was broken up as it passed through your ancestors, and thus how large the chunks should be that are inherited together today. They should be about 700,000 base-pairs long on chromosome 1. What we actually see, however, is chunks about 20,000 base-pairs long, a mere factor of 35 wrong.
quote:
So, when it is argued that you don't SEE the signs of a bottleneck that would have occurred at the time of the Flood all you are saying is you don't see the signs that we see occurring NOW, but a bottleneck then would not have produced those same signs. There would have been a lot more genetic diversity left.
Unfortunately, your argument has nothing to do with how bottlenecks are actually detected in genetic data; in fact, you can't detect a bottleneck by measuring the overall genetic diversity. What we actually look at is the frequency of different variants -- how common they are in the population. In your Flood scenario, all variants would be either extremely rare (the result of very new mutations) or pretty common, since even a single copy of a variant at the time of the Flood would have represented 5% of all copies. That looks nothing at all like what we actually see; what we see is a very nice 1/f spectrum, plus an excess of very rare variants caused by the recent human population explosion (of the last 50,000 years or so). Where there has been a bottleneck, as in the moderate bottleneck in the Out of Africa migration, or the much more severe bottlenecks involved in founding populations like the Finnish, we can easily detect it -- even when it was much longer ago than the alleged Flood bottleneck

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 09-27-2013 6:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 112 of 161 (707520)
09-27-2013 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Faith
09-27-2013 6:41 PM


Re: Mendelian principles account for all the diversity we see
Without getting into the papers you link, which at the moment are over my head or at least mystifying to me. and may remain so even if I spend more time on them -- we'll see--, I at least want to point out that the biblical time spans are quite sufficient to produce all the diversity we see on the basis of the simplest Mendelian genetics, which requires no mutations.
The problem with your argument is even if physical traits are simple mixes and matches of existing traits that is not what is investigated in the papers. The papers look only at inherited genetic material and not any resulting traits. So even if brown eyes plus blue eyes produces green eyes that would not cut it.
So the methods in the paper might well work even if your own understanding about trait inheritance were correct.
You are going to have read the paper to have any hope of contributing to the discussion. As if.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 09-27-2013 6:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 09-28-2013 2:53 PM NoNukes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 113 of 161 (707527)
09-28-2013 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Faith
09-27-2013 6:41 PM


Re: Mendelian principles account for all the diversity we see
Faith writes:
Without getting into the papers you link, which at the moment are over my head or at least mystifying to me. and may remain so even if I spend more time on them -- we'll see--, I at least want to point out that the biblical time spans are quite sufficient to produce all the diversity we see on the basis of the simplest Mendelian genetics, which requires no mutations. I think I posted something to that effect here at one time, but if not I have posted on it at my blog::
The papers are about the non-recombining area of the Y-chromosome, which is passed from father to son. Without mutations, the son's is identical to the father's. That means that all modern men have Noah's "Y" chromosome, and it differs only by the mutations that have happened since. If we can get a good idea of the average mutation rate, then we can get a good idea of about what time all men have a common "Y" ancestor.
One of the papers gives us a good approximation of the mutation rate, which compares well to information from other research, and the other counts mutations on a large area of the genome.
To cut a long story short, there are far too many differences on the Y for the common Y ancestor to have been just 4,500 years ago. So, those who understand the information in the papers will understand that they contain a reasonable falsification of the standard YEC model.
The only thing that YECs can do, if they want to stick to that model, is claim that there was a very high (extraordinarily high) mutation rate after the flood for a sustained period of time. That isn't actually plausible, but it's the only thing left to do.
I'll look at your blog post, but I wanted you to be clear on the uniqueness of the Y-chromosome first.
I'm glad you've turned up to help mindspawn, and any other YECs are welcome, as YEC is what the thread's about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 09-27-2013 6:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 09-28-2013 3:00 PM bluegenes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 114 of 161 (707568)
09-28-2013 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by NoNukes
09-27-2013 10:04 PM


Re: Mendelian principles account for all the diversity we see
I did read the papers, sorry that wasn't clear, I simply find them incomprehensible, and at this point no light has arrived to make them any easier to follow, but I haven't yet got back to them anyway.
I suppose their mystifying effect on me has something to do at least with their assumption of "mutations" as a source of normal variation while of course most creationists regard them as only deleterious accidents. It might help if such interpretive terminology could be translated into simple phenomenological descriptive terms, such as "changes in the sequence of the DNA" instead of "mutations" and if clear reminders were given of where such changes have been actually observed as opposed to where they are extrapolated mathematically etc. Something like that anyway.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2013 10:04 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by NoNukes, posted 09-28-2013 5:39 PM Faith has replied
 Message 122 by mindspawn, posted 10-09-2013 3:10 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 115 of 161 (707573)
09-28-2013 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by bluegenes
09-28-2013 2:00 AM


Re: Mendelian principles account for all the diversity we see
Thanks for the attempt. Can't make sense of it right now. Question comes to mind "Too many differences" from what? Also creationists aren't very good at understanding each other so I may not be of any help to mindspawn nor he to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by bluegenes, posted 09-28-2013 2:00 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by bluegenes, posted 09-30-2013 4:40 AM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 161 (707585)
09-28-2013 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
09-28-2013 2:53 PM


Re: Mendelian principles account for all the diversity we see
I suppose their mystifying effect on me has something to do at least with their assumption of "mutations" as a source of normal variation while of course most creationists regard them as only deleterious accidents.
If you understood any of what bluegenes said about the particular segment of the Y chromosome you would understand that what you are saying is simply not an issue. This is not about mutations leading to observed traits or to anything new and useful. This instead about genetic patterns that do not exist at all in the ancestors..
But in any event, you need not agree with something in order to understand it. And there is no shame in not understanding something.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 09-28-2013 2:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Faith, posted 09-28-2013 5:50 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 117 of 161 (707587)
09-28-2013 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by NoNukes
09-28-2013 5:39 PM


Re: Mendelian principles account for all the diversity we see
Deleted. I don't have the time or interest right now to get into the Y chromosome issues.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by NoNukes, posted 09-28-2013 5:39 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 118 of 161 (707665)
09-30-2013 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
09-28-2013 3:00 PM


Re: Mendelian principles account for all the diversity we see
Faith writes:
Thanks for the attempt. Can't make sense of it right now. Question comes to mind "Too many differences" from what?
From the common "Y" ancestor. It cannot be 4,500 years ago, which the standard YEC model claims.
Also creationists aren't very good at understanding each other so I may not be of any help to mindspawn nor he to me.
I think, apart from mutual moral support, you're correct in that assessment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 09-28-2013 3:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 119 of 161 (708277)
10-08-2013 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by bluegenes
09-27-2013 2:41 AM


You can distribute the SNPs on the A and DR line any way you want. 470 for A and 0 for the rest if you like. You've still got a falsification of YEC. All you need to know is that you can find pairs of humans with more than 600 SNPs on 3.2MBp of the "Y", and you're more than 99% sure that the standard YEC model is false.
As for a lot of truth in what you're saying, the problem is that you'll make fundamental mistakes, get an idea in your head (like thinking that they've used the chimp to find the within human variations in the first place, rather than just to determine the ancestral allele after they are found) and then waste lots of time because of those mistakes.
I said the following:
{I feel that so far, you misunderstand the extent to which their use of the chimp to represent the ancestral allele has affected your conclusions. And so far there are just far to many assumptions (one example - how to distribute the variations between A and DR) and too many variables (mutation rates, generations, % chimp that matches humans, division of mutations between DR and A, division of mutations between the 36 and the 1) and too many overestimations (mutation rate, no of mutation being 6271, no. of mutations in "A")}
You replied that I make mistakes, without actually dealing with the many problems that I pointed out with your conclusions. Your 600 SNP's argument is affected by many factors, and to brush off those factors with sweeping statements leaves this discussion at a stalemate. You have to deal with EACH objection in a mature manner to back up your conclusions. Including lifestyle factors, and uncertainties regarding mutation rates, bit arguments which on their own destroy your point.
Firstly, they don't exactly "cut down the number of variations". What the bit you've quoted here means
Haha, they reduced the number from 6662 to 6271 due to the chimp comparison. They did cut down the number of variations, now are you saying they didn't? Ummm well.
quote:
"We extracted the ancestral allele for each position that was variable in humans (assumed to be the allele present in chimpanzee) using the Ensembl-Compara pipeline (Vilella et al. 2009), release 66, and obtained calls for 6271 of the total number of 6662 variable sites (Fig. 1; Supplemental Table S2)."
is that they found 6271 of the 6662 variable sites in the chimp. The chimps are missing the rest. Overall, the chimps are missing about 30% of our "Y", but on that particular 8.97 Mbp, they have nearly all of it. In the 3.2Mbp chart we're looking at, they've left out the SNPs for which they don't have an ancestral match, which is about 5%. The only effect this has is that it makes the "Y" ancestor seem a bit younger than it actually is, which is to the advantage of YEC. Now, here's an example of something you've picked up on, misunderstood, and therefore started to base lots of mistakes on your misunderstanding.
Are you saying that the chimp matched the reference sequence in 6271 positions. The study does not say if the chimp matched the reference sequence, but rather seems to indicate that the chimp's alleles matched the variants (the 36 individuals). Please back up your view from your link, because this needs clarification and without it your evidence is meaningless.
The chimp-ckicken comparison is about structure, not SNPs. Whole chunks of our "Y" are missing from the chimp, and whole chunks of theirs from ours. Plus there are all kinds of rearrangements. But where humans and chimps share chunks of it (as in most of the 8.97Mbp that the paper is dealing with) the nucleotide identity is 98.3% the same. So, while the chimp is not the ideal outgroup for these 36 individuals (Neanderthal would be better if it was well enough sequenced) it's pretty good.
If you and I differed on a given locus on the "Y" that also existed in the chimp, we could be 98.3% sure that the one who also differed from the chimp was the one carrying the mutation. This would apply just as much if the similarity between us and the chimps was due to common design by a creator as it does with common descent, because we can establish the 98.3% reality regardless.
So, you could put their figures of 285 and 185 along the A and DR lines if you wanted to without assuming common descent, but it doesn't really matter what we put there so far as the falsification is concerned.
I'll get on to the stone age people appearing in medieval Europe in my next post, hopefully, because I find it amusing.
BTW, you'll find what you're looking for in the Method section of the paper.
Meet GRCh37
You are focussing on the chimp, a point which you still have to show evidence for. But in addition to the chimp point, there are multiple other problems with your conclusions that you are just not dealing with.
Edited by mindspawn, : fixing quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by bluegenes, posted 09-27-2013 2:41 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by bluegenes, posted 10-08-2013 6:45 AM mindspawn has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 120 of 161 (708287)
10-08-2013 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by mindspawn
10-08-2013 4:02 AM


mindspawn writes:
I said the following:
{I feel that so far, you misunderstand the extent to which their use of the chimp to represent the ancestral allele has affected your conclusions. And so far there are just far to many assumptions (one example - how to distribute the variations between A and DR) and too many variables (mutation rates, generations, % chimp that matches humans, division of mutations between DR and A, division of mutations between the 36 and the 1) and too many overestimations (mutation rate, no of mutation being 6271, no. of mutations in "A")}
You replied that I make mistakes, without actually dealing with the many problems that I pointed out with your conclusions.
Your perception of "many problems" comes from your mistakes, or from willful misunderstanding, conscious or subconscious. If you understood the information in the paper, you would be at least 99% sure that your young biosphere model is false.
mindspawn writes:
Your 600 SNP's argument is affected by many factors, and to brush off those factors with sweeping statements leaves this discussion at a stalemate.
Stop decieving yourself! It won't fool people who understand the two papers I'm using.
mindspawn writes:
You have to deal with EACH objection in a mature manner to back up your conclusions. Including lifestyle factors, and uncertainties regarding mutation rates, bit arguments which on their own destroy your point.
Do you realise that you need the SNP mutation rate to be more than 10 times what was found in the 13 generation pedigree study? No amount of variables can give you anywhere near that.
mindspawn writes:
Haha, they reduced the number from 6662 to 6271 due to the chimp comparison. They did cut down the number of variations, now are you saying they didn't? Ummm well.
Are you saying that the chimp matched the reference sequence in 6271 positions.
It had those loci which all the humans had. The rest were deleted in the chimps (or not designed into it, from your point of view). The loci that are non-existent in the chimp still contain mutations which have occurred in the human group since the common Y ancestor (there's more there's one allele present on those loci).
The study does not say if the chimp matched the reference sequence, but rather seems to indicate that the chimp's alleles matched the variants (the 36 individuals). Please back up your view from your link, because this needs clarification and without it your evidence is meaningless.
Once again, you're showing that you don't understand what you're reading. The chimp doesn't have any alleles for the loci that it doesn't have, to state the obvious. You're also showing that you don't understand why the chimp is irrelevant to our falsification. Do you understand the following? If we want to find out approximately how far two humans are from a common Y ancestor, all we have to do is compare a sizeable section of their Y chromosomes. The chimps can be extinct. If you find two individuals with 600 differences on 3.2Mb, you've falsified the standard YEC model, because no plausible mutation rate can give you that effect. You will find your 600+ by comparing any haplogroup "A" individual with individuals from any other haplogroup.
mindspawn writes:
You are focussing on the chimp, a point which you still have to show evidence for. But in addition to the chimp point, there are multiple other problems with your conclusions that you are just not dealing with.
I'm focusing on the chimp because you keep bringing him up, and I keep having to explain why he's irrelevant to the falsification. You can identify all the SNPs and the quantity of different variable points between any two individuals without an outgroup.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by mindspawn, posted 10-08-2013 4:02 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by mindspawn, posted 10-08-2013 9:54 AM bluegenes has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024