|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genetics and Human Brain Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eggasai Inactive Member |
quote: Then what does bp stand for in your formula if not base pairs?
quote: I'll buy we don't know, we can't tell, its out of reach for for technology and knowledge. What I don't buy is the constant unsubstantiated assertion that genetics and single common ancesotry blends together in dovetail fashion. Do you think I took an interest in this whole subject because I am fascinated with biogenomics or I like being talked to like I'm mentally deficient. The one thing that has fascintaed me about all of this is the intensity everyone from a freshman Biology 101 student to a PHD has in common is that they find creationism detestable.
quote: It was the Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 paper and it was just a for instance, not meant to be a mean average. However, if the actual LCA was 5 mya instead of 7 mya (which seems to be the consensus) then we are pretty close to where we started. Now it's 18 bp (apparently I don't know what that is because I thought it was base pairs), which is two less then I was basing my earlier estimate on.
quote: Let's just say that's around 200 base pairs fixed because that sounds like what you are saying. Obviously that would be happening at random in chimpanzee genomes on the same scale and at the same rate. Why did the human lineage have their brain size triple while their primate cousins stayed in relative stasis? I only ask because the LCA was supposedly 5-7 mya and our ancestors did not actually leave Africa until about 1.5 mya. That means that both lineages are contemporary for millions of years, one adapting like wildfire and the other lineage in stasis. By the way, did you ever notice that none of the fossils found in equtaorial Africa are ape ancestors, only hominids?
quote: I think it's more like fundamental dogma and some kind of a semantical shell game. The issue of adaptive evolution is the lineage leading up to humans must never be challenged, especially if it's based on religious conviction. I make a couple of semantical errors about amino acids, triplet codons and something trivial about the etymology of 'Biology' and I'm guilty of numerous errors. The genetic basis for the human brain adapting from that of an ape ancestor either does not exist or is completly unknown. That doesn't stop anyone of you from preaching common ancestry like it's an inerrent canon of biology. I am supposed to take the ubiquitious common anscestry of all living systems back to primordial bacteria and fauna but believing that Genesis 1 through Revelations 22 is history from beginning to end is ignorant. It is logical, reasonable and scientific to accept that randomly occuring mutations somehow managed to produce alterations in highly conserved protein coding, regulatory and funtionally important genes adapting an ape brain to modern humans but it is an argument from incredulity to suggest anything otherwise. This happens at every major epoh of natural history and don't you dare challenge the assumption that the order and complexity of all living systems were ordered out by exclusivly naturalistic processes. It's ok to believe in God as long as he isn't going to do something inexplicable or supernatural. I have read the books, webpages, papers and endless posts like the one in this thread for better then two years now. Then I am informed by unanimous consent of scientific professionals I don't have a clue about the basics. I'm through with it. Grace and peace,Mark Edited by eggasai, : transcript error
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eggasai Inactive Member |
I'll tell you what the problem is, you guys don't want people to know what the actual divergence is. That's why the semantical shell game.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eggasai Inactive Member |
Just for clarification, I'm giving up the Creation/evolution because I really get tired of the duplicity. There is a list as long as you arm throughout this thread of disingenuise statements but this one gets the booby prize of all times. You see, all this time I thought we were looking at a clash of worldviews, differences of opinion on the substantive reasons for the evidence. I don't think so anymore.
I can do this as long as I can find the time for it. I'll just give up creationism and start studying another kind of evidential apologetics. The names changes and the source material is different but the arguements allways go in the same circles. That's not why I am giving up the Crevo thing, it's not that I'm scared, it's that I am finally disgusted. I don't think this is an honest difference of opinion anymore, I think evolutionists are liars. Time says that we are 98%-99% chimpanzee in our DNA and they know we are not. Nature in announcing the Chimpanzee Genome paper says we are 98% chimpanzee in our DNA and the paper says we are not. Then when I bring up the indels with one of the staff scientists who worked on the paper I get this:
quote: He gives this formula and enters bp in the equation, it seems pretty obvious that it stands for base pair. Then he says it's not base pairs it's the single base substitution rate. No matter how many times I measure divergence by base pairs I will be wrong because bp is not base pairs even though that is how he has been using it for almost a year. You guys do this and do this and do this. I don't think you are trying to correct an error in my posts I think you are trying to create an error in my thinking. I don't mind an honest difference of opinion or the whole board coming against me just as hard as they can, I love that. Disingenuise double talk and the semantical slight of hand you guys are using disgusts me. At least at one time I respected evolutionists who had credentials, now I think you are all the same, evolution isn't science, suppostion or even semantical wordplay. It's a lie. Edited by eggasai, : Didn't want there to be any mistake about what I was saying
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eggasai Inactive Member |
You think I want you to feel sorry for me, is that it? When I tell you I'm disgusted I mean exactly that. I listened carefully to all the criticisms and often search around seeing what I can find on the net about it. Mostly it's just a pass time and occasionally I have some fun with it. When I talked to sfs on CF before I left the discussion satisfied that I had just misunderstood and let it go at that. Then I happen upon the Time article and it says 98% of chimpanzee and human DNA is the same, I know it's more like 95% and suspect they do as well. Then I find the Chimpanzee Genome webpage Nature puts up and there it is at the top of the Google search for Chimpanzee Genome saying 98% when I know for a fact they read the paper and know that 98% is wrong. I ask sfs about it and he says they just counted the single nucleotide substitutions.
That's great I thought, we'll just pretend that 100,000,000 base pairs are insignifigant. The final straw was telling me the bp in 2x10^-9/bp/generation is not base pair. It can be one or it can be a million when clearly it means one. This isn't a perspective on the evidence or the methodology, this isn't a miscommunication or the inablility of a layman to understand how professional geneticists do their thing. This is flat out wrong. Nothing in any of the scientific literature suggests that a mutation a million nucleotides/base pairs long is the same as a single one. Now I'm being told that they are 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 probably somewhere between 85% and 90%, who knows? I don't like being lied to and something else, I wouldn't lie like that to anyone unless I was desperate to hide the truth. Main stream science has been saying for half a century our DNA is 99% chimpanzee and cannot explain how we are not. The latest propaganda is that a bp can be 1 nucleotide/base pair or a million. Like I told you guys, I'm not intimadated, I'm disgusted. Edited by eggasai, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eggasai Inactive Member |
The debates over dude, I'm just hanging around long enough to tell you guys exactly why. I went through something simular with Liberal theology and finally realized it was just eccumentical atheism. 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.
quote: 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. I'm going to use a lot of the HGP stuff to cover the basic life sciences since our tax dollars produced it and they don't mind as long as they get credited.
quote: I don't know how many hours I have spent on the thread but if you were going to analyse something you had your chance. When I thought you guys were sincerly trying to get something through to me I was willing to pursue this at any length. Now I think you know the truth and deliberatly distort it. It's kind of neat though, I started out at Revelations and worked back through the Bible. The final peice of the puzzle was Genesis 1 and 2, now I not only think main stream science is wrong or willfully ignorant, I think their lying through they're teeth. Happy trails to you,Mark Edited by eggasai, : Boombad'eada bombad'eeda
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eggasai Inactive Member |
That's just it, I don't have a tenuous grip of the basics, it never occured to me that RNA programed proteins. I know that bp means base pair and I'm not going to sit here and pretend that you guys didn't want me to think otherwise. I'm not really all that irratated with you guys, it's sfs I'll be taking it up with.
I was enjoying the exchange up until that point, I'm only starting to learn how to navigate Entrenz, I don't need this kind of nonsense leading me down the primrose path. There's just no way I'm going to try to learn something as difficult as molecular biology with people who I know are misleading and lieing to me. The critical spirit, the sharp words, the detail specific analysis I can deal with, that's the best part of it. I won't suffer a liar trying to teach me. [edited to add]I'll tell you what, I'm done with the thread but you can still impress me with you integrity if you like. Just admit it, bp means base pair and mutations are measured in base pairs or single nucleotides. I don't expect you will even though it is the kind of thing you guys have feeding freenzies about when creationists do it. Edited by eggasai, : Why would you care why I edited it? Edited by eggasai, : A little PS stinger before I go.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eggasai Inactive Member |
This is where he comes right out and says bp does not mean base pairs, it means mutation events:
quote: 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eggasai Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eggasai Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eggasai Inactive Member |
quote: Yea and it's telling when they get caught in a lie and just keep on telling it like nothing ever happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eggasai Inactive Member |
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: 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: Which comes to 2 per 100 Mb.
quote: 2 per 100 Mb will net you around 60 per generation, estimated at 20 years.
quote: That's right, bp per generation.
quote: 45 rounds per minute...got it.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eggasai Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eggasai Inactive Member |
You guys really don't have a clue do you, all I was saying is that bp in the formula meant base pair. You guys turn it over like a sizzling hamburger, dress it up with lettuce onions and tomato and smack your lips around it like it's lunch.
All this mellodrama for a simple straight forward statement, bp means base pair. 2 x 10^-8 means 2 per 100,000,000, bp means base pair, generation is estimated at 20 years. That's it, there is nothing left to explain. Then you want me to assume that bp does not mean base pair. There are two clear line of deception with various tactics being imployed. One, pretend that 98% of the DNA is the same in chimpanzees and humans and if you lie about it most people will believe it. Two, if someone comes along and realizes that it is actually 95% immediatly act as it it made no difference that 100,000,000 base pairs doesn't change anything. Viruses don't replicate as much as the human genome would have had to since the last common ancestor. Time magazine lied about the divergance, Nature lied about the divergance and you guys are twisting a very simple math problem into an incomprehesible gibberish. There is only one conclusion I find remotely reasonable, the truth won't work so mainstream science lies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eggasai Inactive Member |
Try this:
Rate- 2 x 10^-8 = 2 per 100 Mb. 300 Mb in the human/chimpanzee genomes respectivly. That comes to 60 bp. Time- Generation estimated at 20 years. Distance- Measured in base pairs. You plug 145 Mb into the bp, you plug 350,000 into generation, what is the rate? I already know, if you are being honest you already know. What is the rate? I'll give you a big clue, 2 x 10^-8 comes to 16 million in the respective genomes which accounts for the 35 million single base substitutions that diverge. The indels are 3x that so we are looking at 6 x 10^-8 with the rearrangements it's roughly up one for 7 x 10^-8. Let me guess...NO NO NO YOU DONT UNDERSTAND!!!...the trouble is I understand fine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eggasai Inactive Member |
quote: Yes Steve I do understand and all this semantical slight of hand doesn't change anything. I didn't just bust in here and jump into someone elses conversation. I've been asking you about the indels for sometime and you have yet to answer a fundamental question, how did the divergance get there with an observed rate of 2 x 10^-8/bp/generation? The obvious answer is that it didn't happen at 3 x that rate. So you guys just pretend that a 1 bp mutation is the same thing as one a million base pairs long!!!! Time could have made a mistake when they said 98% of the DNA was the same. Nature might have only been counting the single nucleotide substitutions when they said the same thing. This is a direct contradiction, you either made a mistake or you lied: "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." You said that bp does not mean base pairs. I know what you were trying to do, you were trying to take the observed mutation rate and squeeze all of the divergance into it. It doesn't work and I do know what I'm talking about because I learned to find, isolate and emphasis other peoples fatal errors from experts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024