Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9041 total)
531 online now:
kjsimons (1 member, 530 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 885,918 Year: 3,564/14,102 Month: 184/321 Week: 44/59 Day: 5/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3 of 252 (809974)
05-22-2017 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taq
05-22-2017 12:55 PM


For creationists who claim that microevolution and macroevolution are two different things, here is a simple challenge:

Show us a single genetic difference between the human and chimp genome that could not have been produced by known microevolutionary processes in either the chimp or human lineages.

But that didn't produce a new 'kind' ... oh wait ...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taq, posted 05-22-2017 12:55 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 252 (810143)
05-24-2017 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Taq
05-23-2017 4:59 PM


Re: Chimp or Human Mutations?
Just for fun, I compared the chimp sequence to the gorilla sequence to figure out if those two mutations occurred in the chimp or human lineages. If the chimp and gorilla sequence is the same then the mutation happened in the human lineage. If the human and gorilla sequence is the same, then the mutation occurred in the chimp lineage.

As it turns out, the first mutation in the opening post is specific to the chimp lineage, and the second mutation is specific to the human lineage (using BLASTn).

Nicely done.

Are you sure about those time stamps at the bottom? I thought human/chimp split was ~10MYA, and this puts the split square in the lap of Ardipithecus ramidus and Ardipithecus kadabba:

quote:
Ardipithecus is a genus of an extinct hominine that lived during Late Miocene and Early Pliocene in Afar Depression, Ethiopia. Originally described as one of the earliest ancestors of humans after they diverged from the main ape lineage, the relation of this genus to human ancestors and whether it is a hominin is now a matter of debate.[1] Two fossil species are described in the literature: A. ramidus, which lived about 4.4 million years ago[2] during the early Pliocene, and A. kadabba, dated to approximately 5.6 million years ago (late Miocene).[3] Behavioral analysis showed that Ardipithecus could be very similar to chimpanzees, indicating that the early human ancestors were very chimpanzee-like in behaviour.[1]

and it puts the gorilla split in the lap of Sahelanthropus tchadensis:

quote:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis is an extinct homininae species (and is probably the ancestor to Orrorin) that is dated to about 7 million years ago, during the Miocene epoch, possibly very close to the time of the chimpanzee–human divergence. Few specimens are known, other than the partial skull nicknamed Toumaï ("hope of life").

Exciting times.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Taq, posted 05-23-2017 4:59 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Taq, posted 05-24-2017 10:52 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 7 of 252 (810170)
05-24-2017 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Taq
05-24-2017 10:52 AM


Re: Chimp or Human Mutations?
A quick scan of a Google Scholar search seems to show that recent papers are still using divergence times of around 4-6 million years, with some papers going even as high as 8 MYA. I would suspect that 10 MYA would be an outlier with respect to the consensus.

Or it is just old. I remember speculating when Sahelanthropus tchadensis was found that it could be the common ancestor with chimps.

As to Ardipithecus, it may push the common ancestor more towards the 6 MYA side of the equation than the 4 MYA

Or it (or a close relative) is the common ancestor.

We know already that it is intermediate in form and that "Behavioral analysis showed that Ardipithecus could be very similar to chimpanzees, indicating that the early human ancestors were very chimpanzee-like in behaviour.[1]"

See The story of Bones and Dogs and Humans:

quote:
Let's put Ardi in a line-up with Humans, Australopithicus and Chimps (note skeletons not scaled the same):


The major difference in appearance I see being the hip bones, but not out of a reasonable realm for evolution.

There are some missing bones for the Ardi reconstruction, so new finds will be needed to fill in that gap in our knowledge.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Taq, posted 05-24-2017 10:52 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Taq, posted 05-24-2017 4:30 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 10 of 252 (810193)
05-25-2017 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by CRR
05-25-2017 12:12 AM


Re: No Contest
Why not first start a thread on the definitions and differences between microevolution and macroevolution?

Several threads on this issue, see MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? for example. It starts with creationist misinformed definitions.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by CRR, posted 05-25-2017 12:12 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 252 (812352)
06-16-2017 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by aristotle
06-16-2017 4:19 AM


Do you truly think it fair expecting creationists to prove the changes were not the result of mutations, when you can't prove that they were?

That's not quite what he asked in Message 1. He actually asked:

Show us a single genetic difference between the human and chimp genome that could not have been produced by known microevolutionary processes in either the chimp or human lineages.

eg - compare the genomes and show which differences could not occur through mutations of the type observed in organisms today.

Do you see the difference?

That asked, the chances of the mutations required between human and primate, occurring in the right gene and often enough in the population to change the genome of the entire species, are next to naught.

By themselves, random base substitutions, and deletions, resulting in beneficial changes to the organism, do not occur frequently enough.

Do you agree that domestic dogs and cats and cows and sheep show a wide variety of traits and sizes to the point where some dogs are remarkably different from other dogs?

That's a lot of genetic changes and a fair proportion of them are documented by historical observation in recent (geoplogical) years.

If we compared the skeletons of those dogs to one another, would we see more or less variation than see here:

Inquiring minds want to know.

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 4:19 AM aristotle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 7:09 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 18 of 252 (812362)
06-16-2017 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by aristotle
06-16-2017 7:09 AM


Noted, but the poster cannot prove that the genetic differences were the produced by ME processes, any more than I can prove they were not.

Again the question was not whether they were but whether they could be. In other words look at the types of mutations that we observe and show that there is something different that could not occur via one of the known types of mutations.

Ok, but those dogs were selectively bred, those homonids were not.

A distinction without a difference.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 7:09 AM aristotle has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 21 of 252 (812376)
06-16-2017 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by aristotle
06-16-2017 8:43 AM


"Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½) , or one chance out of 10 . The number 10 , if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200- component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion,
trillion, trillion!" - Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

http://www.icr.org/...e/mathematical-impossibility-evolution

Curiously math is incapable of affecting reality, it can only model it, and when the model and reality disagree it is the model that is faulty.

quote:
the old improbable probability problem: We see them over and over .... this or that could not possibly have happened because the improbability is just too great.

Usually these are based on very restrictive "all-at-once-out-of-nothing" linear calculations where the errors involved are multifold and pervasive:

  1. The calculation is a mathematical model of reality and not the reality itself. When a model fails to replicate reality it is not reality that is at fault but the mathematical model. When a hurricane prediction program crashes because it can't model the first hurricane in the South Atlantic on record, the meteorologists don't go out to the hurricane and say "you can't be here, our model does not allow you to be here" ... they fix the model by looking for and taking out the failed assumptions (ie - that all hurricanes are north of the equator). When a model fails to model reality it is a good indication that some aspect of reality has been missed in the model.

read more ....


Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 8:43 AM aristotle has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 28 of 252 (812473)
06-16-2017 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by aristotle
06-16-2017 8:43 AM


... because it is incredibly complex and cannot function without all it's parts. Michael Behe in his book 'Darwin's Black Box' states, for example,

Do you realize that his "irreducible complexity" claim has been falsified?

quote:
Claim CB200:

Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed.

Source: Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press.

Response:

  1. Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

    • deletion of parts
    • addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
    • change of function
    • addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
    • gradual modification of parts

    All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

    Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.

  2. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

  3. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

  4. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
    • The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
    • The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
    • In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
    • The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.

Links:
TalkOrigins Archive. n.d. Irreducible complexity and Michael Behe. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html


Then there is also Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments

quote:

1. Irreducible Complexity


Ken Miller on his website "A True Acid Test" talks about the evolution of an "Irreducibly Complex" mechanism that fits the definition Michael Behe used when he made the term up ("Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." - p 39):
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.

The conclusion made by Behe and others is that IF evolution cannot produce them, THEN they must have been made, designed, created.

Let's review the logic of this argument:

  • (P1) complex systems exist in biological organisms where there are multiple parts involved in a process, feature or function, and where the removal of any part of the system renders the whole process non-functional.
  • (P2) if NO such system can evolve then it must be developed by some other process, and then, AND ONLY THEN, the existence of any "IC" system is evidence that "some other process"MUST have occurred.
  • (C1) Therefore such a system MUST be made, designed, created by some other process.

Leaving aside for now the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy (and the fact that precept (P2) of this argument is basically based on ignorance or denial of how such systems could have formed), we can still show that the concept is falsified if we can show that ONE such "IC" system HAS evolved: if ONE such "IC" system evolves then it invalidates the "then AND ONLY THEN" condition that is necessary in order that "some other process" MUST be involved.

Without the "then AND ONLY THEN" condition, the argument is reduced to it MAY have happened on any system where we just don't know whether it evolved or not (thus depending on ignorance of any mechanism to even be considered), and the specific conclusion is invalid (as several other conclusions can be made with equal validity, one of which is "we don't know") ... or at this point it becomes a non-falsifiable concept, a god-of-the-gaps, a moving-goal-post concept that avoids scientific pursuit of answers at all costs. Without the above condition the conclusion becomes

  • (C1b) Therefore such a system MAY or MAY NOT have evolved OR it MAY or MAY NOT have been made, designed, created by some other process, OR the universe may have sprung into existence last thursday fully formed, OR some other answer: we don't know.

This is not a testable conclusion and does not add any intellectual advantage to investigating the biology of the system with only science - the pursuit of knowledge based on what we DO know.

This is why the principle of falsification is used by science.

On to the experiments in question:

As noted in Ken Miller's website, just such an "IC" system was seen, observed, and documented as evolving in a couple of experiments run by Barry Hall:

quote:
In 1982, Barry Hall of the University of Rochester began a series of experiments in which he deleted the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase. The loss of this gene makes it impossible for the bacteria to metabolize the sugar lactose. What happened next? Under appropriate selection conditions Hall found that the bacteria evolved not only the gene for a new beta-galactosidase enzyme (called the evolved beta-galactosidase gene, or ebg), but also a control sequence that switched the new gene on when glucose was present. Finally, a new chemical reaction evolved as well, producing allolactose, the chemical signal that normally switches on the lac permease gene, allowing lactose to flow into the cell.

Does Barry Hall's ebg system fit the definition of irreducible complexity? Absolutely. The three parts of the evolved system are:

(1) A lactose-sensitive ebg repressor protein that controls expression of the galactosidase enzyme
(2) The ebg galactosidase enzyme
(3) The enzyme reaction that induces the lac permease

Unless all three are in place, the system does not function, which is, of course, the key element of an irreducibly complex system.

It's "irreducible" and it evolved. Thus precept (P2) is invalidated, falsified, refuted, and ALL conclusions based on it are invalidate. Q.E.D.

Denial of falsification is not faith, it is delusion: something believed in spite of evidence to the contrary.


Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 8:43 AM aristotle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by dwise1, posted 06-16-2017 8:44 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 48 of 252 (813498)
06-28-2017 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by CRR
06-28-2017 12:11 AM


CRR at ~6200 years.

And yet you can't show any errors in the tree ring data that shows the earth is at least 10,444 ...

as the last post on the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread shows.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by CRR, posted 06-28-2017 12:11 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 252 (813955)
07-03-2017 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by mike the wiz
07-02-2017 12:46 PM


Hi Mike

For me it's reasonable to then say, "then the micro will reveal this macro change" so then show me micro changes which are changing a contraflow lung into a different design of lung, a novel anatomy! The excuse will be; "evolution doesn't have to take a different direction." But then isn't that a tacit admission that micro changes don't have to lead anywhere?

No, Mike, the "excuse" will be that evolution doesn't work that way, it just adapts for fitness with the available traits due to mutations.

But thanks for sharing what you think macroevolution entails.

... I would say the problem with your, "challenge" is that it is much less of a challenge to take two primates with a very similar body plan and say, "show me how it can't be micro". ...

Such as Australopithicus and Chimpanzee?

Have at it.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by mike the wiz, posted 07-02-2017 12:46 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2017 5:57 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 53 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2017 6:05 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 66 of 252 (814131)
07-04-2017 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by mike the wiz
07-03-2017 7:57 AM


... But as a skeletal plan, all are mammals with forward vision and a collar bone. That's about all that's shared.

With hair, backward facing retinas, single eyelids (some cats and dogs have vestigial nictating membranes) ...

But we can also count all the hand and foot bones, arm and leg bones ... can you tell me which of these bones are not in humans?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2017 7:57 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Coyote, posted 07-04-2017 8:04 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 76 of 252 (814440)
07-09-2017 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by CRR
07-09-2017 8:11 PM


When we compare the human genome to any two other species it is almost certain that one of those will be genetically closer to humans than the other. E.g. Human vs dog vs banana. I bet the dog is closer genetically.

And why is that?

Inquiring minds want to know ...

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by CRR, posted 07-09-2017 8:11 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by CRR, posted 07-09-2017 8:55 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 86 of 252 (814456)
07-10-2017 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by CRR
07-09-2017 8:55 PM


your designer copies and reuses specific designs?
Or were you asking why I think dogs would be genetically closer? Because we have in common many body tissues, organs, etc. that are built of similar proteins. From a common designer we would expect the genomes to contain many similar sequences.

Leaving aside the issue of similar proteins being usable, while the non-coding markers show an inherited lineage pattern rather than one simply required for functionality ...

You are claiming your designer copies and reuses specific designs, and this results in the patterns we see rather than evolution being the cause, yes?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by CRR, posted 07-09-2017 8:55 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 159 of 252 (814830)
07-13-2017 6:55 AM


talk about off topic talk ...
discussing anything bible is not the topic. See Message 1:

quote:
For creationists who claim that microevolution and macroevolution are two different things, here is a simple challenge:

Show us a single genetic difference between the human and chimp genome that could not have been produced by known microevolutionary processes in either the chimp or human lineages.

Just for clarity, I am defining a microevolutionary change as a single mutational event (e.g. base substitution, insertion, deletion, transposon insertion, retroviral insertion, or genetic recombination) that is passed on to descendants.


This is a simple request, based on actual empirical evidence and asking for actual empirical evidence.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by CRR, posted 07-24-2017 7:24 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 194 of 252 (816767)
08-10-2017 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by CRR
08-10-2017 7:50 PM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
The best evolutionary explanation for this is that the common ancestor species had all of those genes and each lineage has lost a large number of genes since separation.

No, the best evolutionary explanationis that since separation, some genes have been lost and some new genes have been gained.

You have not shown that evolution only results in loss, so you cannot base your hypothesis on incomplete information.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by CRR, posted 08-10-2017 7:50 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by CRR, posted 08-11-2017 12:49 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021