Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge

Yip. Thats why humans and Chimps and Bonobos and Baboons and Daffodils and Amoebas are different.I'm still trying to find out what your arguments about non-homologue genes are.Genes different; different organisms. It's not really difficult.

It depends on the gene. You need to be specific about which gene you are talking about. You tell us. Do you consider the evolution of humans and chimps from a common ancestor to be macroevolution or microevolution? Most creationists I know would count this as macroevolution, which is why I used it in this thread.

That is the explanation for the differences between the human y chromosome and the chimp y chromosome for the specific genes found at the end of the human y chromosome. I never said that it applies to every single difference between every chromosome.Also, you are trying to conflate genes with DNA. Humans can have genes without homologues in the chimp genome, but they can still share the same DNA in those same regions. Gene is not a synonym for DNA. Genes are determined by RNA, not just DNA. You already referenced the papers with those lists. Perhaps you should read your own references? Do you think the evolution of humans from a common ancestor shared with chimps is microevolution?

No, because I don't think they evolved from a common ancestor.

If humans did evolve from a common ancestor shared with chimps, would you accept that as an example of macroevolution?

Ignoring religious beliefs for the moment, from whence did chimps and humans then evolve?

That would depend on what changes were required to produce the differences and how you define micro/macro evolution. As I've said before IF the common ancestor had all the human genes that chimps lack (and vice versa) and IF you define genetic loss as microevolution THEN it could be entirely microevolution.This is why I originally said that you had arranged a "no win" challenge since you can make any assumptions you want and your definition of "microevolution" is so broad that such a scenario is permissible. From Message 1 Make the right assumptions about the common ancestor and allow enough deletions and you can explain anything!Of more interest would be to show that ALL genetic differences can be produced from a common ancestor having only genes that are orthologous within the great apes, and ensuring that all required changes produce no decrease in fitness and are fixed within the required time frame (allow 10 million years).btw Dr Adequate in another thread showed that genetic drift could have caused a substantial amount of difference in a time period of ~7 million years. That could get you off to a good start.

Can you point to a difference between the chimp and human genomes that could not be produced by known processes of mutagenesis? After all, this was the challenge given out in the opening post. It seems that we have come full circle, and you continue to avoid the question at hand. You already cited a reference that new genes evolved in the human and chimp lineages. Did you forget that already? No, that is what you do. You are projecting.I define macroevolution as the divergence of two lineages on separate evolutionary trajectories. This means that their genomes will diverge over time, and that is exactly what we have with chimps and humans. Gene deletion is detected by the presence of the gene in the rest of the phylogeny. I already showed you that. Turning the challenge around on your opponents without ever addressing the challenge is not a valid argument. The challenge in the opening post still stands.

From the above it can be seen that your statement that Taq defined microevolution broadly is contradicted by his very words that you quote, which describe a rather narrow definition.These are the definitions of micro and macroevolution you offered in Message 183: Yours and Taq's definitions seem well within the realm of reconciliation. I continue to encourage you to reach agreement on the definitions. No one's defining microevolution as genetic loss, and no one's calling human/chimp evolution from a common ancestor microevolution. Chimps have genes humans don't have, and humans have genes chimps don't have. That would seem the very definition of the accumulation of microevolutionary changes into macroevolution.--Percy

What I was trying to point out is that there is no single agreed definition for micro/macroevolution.I said I preferred Durston's definition and gave the definitions from the flashcard website as another comparison. The point is that the definitions you quoted from Wikipedia are not universally agreed. Both the definitions I gave disagreed with your quoted definition for macroevolution.In message 1 Taq is trying to define microevolution as a single mutation event including almost any possible change, including an insertion of any size. The de novo appearance of a fully functional orphan gene as a single insertion would therefore be counted as microevolution. There are no limits as to fitness, waiting time, or any other realistic constraint. Basically Taq allows himself a magic wand to accomplish any imaginable change in an arbitrary time.As I said, it's a no win challenge and I'm not going to play.

All you've done is demonstrated a fact of life, that different people use different words and ways to define the same things. Not in any substantive way. If you think there are meaningful disagreements then point them out. Technically yes it would, but that's an impossibly unlikely event. Taq has never said anything like this.--Percy

I am defining macroevolution as the differences between humans and chimps. Do you agree or disagree that the differences between humans and chimps constitutes macroevolution? Do you think humans and chimps are in the same created kind and share a common ancestor?I am trying to find an example of macroevolution that we can both agree to so we don't quibble about definitions. If you want, we can use another primate genome that you think it better represents macroevolution if chimps and humans share a common ancestor in your version of creationism. The whole point is that microevolutionary events accumulate to produce macroevolution, just as walking a mile is the accumulation of single steps. You haven't shown that the differences between the human and chimp genomes violates any limits. Remember, the challenge is being given to you to show that microevolution can not produce the differences seen between the human and chimp genomes. Bare assertions aren't going to cut it.Also, we can directly observe all of these types of mutations occurring in living species, so it is hardly magic. Magic is what you believe in. You think a supernatural deity magically poofed species into being. It seems that you are trying to accuse others of holding beliefs that you already hold. We call this "projection".Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Since it is only a hypothesis that humans and chimps developed from a common ancestor your definition is circular reasoning.
I am defining macroevolution as a gain of a statistically significant amount of genetic information.Remind me, how do you explain that every human/chimp chromosome has genes that are non-homologous between humans and chimps?

Macroevolution should constitute gains, losses and changes of genetic information.What do you consider a "statistically significant amount of genetic information"? Chimp and human genomes are percentagely similar in the high 90's.--Percy

It is the same definition you are using. You said that macroevolution is the amount of change needed to produce a new "kind". Humans and chimps are in different kinds, according to your own posts. If the differences between the chimp and human genomes do not constitute "a gain of a statistically significant amount of genetic information" then you don't need a significant gain in order to produce macroevolution.If the differences between the chimp and human genomes do constitute a significant gain, then those differences are the beneficial mutations that occurred through microevolution that accumulated to the point where they produced macroevolution.Your choice. A combination of gene loss, gene duplication, and evolution of transcription binding sites upstream of DNA that was previously not transcribed. Here is a review article if you want to read more:

quote:

---

Nat Rev Genet. 2011 Aug 31;12(10):692-702.

​

The evolutionary origin of orphan genes.

​

Tautz D1, Domazet-Loo T.

​

Abstract

​

Gene evolution has long been thought to be primarily driven by duplication and rearrangement mechanisms. However, every evolutionary lineage harbours orphan genes that lack homologues in other lineages and whose evolutionary origin is only poorly understood. Orphan genes might arise from duplication and rearrangement processes followed by fast divergence; however, de novo evolution out of non-coding genomic regions is emerging as an important additional mechanism. This process appears to provide raw material continuously for the evolution of new gene functions, which can become relevant for lineage-specific adaptations.
The evolutionary origin of orphan genes - PubMed

---

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.