What does that even mean? Outside of identical twins, no two humans has the same genome. Every person is born with 50 to 100 mutations, meaning every human is born with a genome that has never existed before. The best we can do is find similarities between genomes.
Each individual of course has a variation of it because of the variations that occur from generation to generation but it's still a genome for whatever, a human being for instance.
There are new variations that occur in every generation, and those variations accumulate over time. This is why humans and chimps are separated by 40 million mutations.
Last I saw, the time from a common ancestor ape is ~10 million years, so that's 4 fixed mutations a year on average. Hardly restrictive.
Exactly. For neutral drift, the number of fixed mutations per generation is equal to the mutation rate. The human mutation rate is ~100 mutations per individual per generation, and the latest research indicates that the rate is about 50% higher in other apes.
Using these numbers, we would expect 20 million fixed mutations in the human lineage in 5 million years and 30 million in the chimp lineage for a total of 50 million. That's right where it should be.
Of course if you were able to change the human genome into an exact copy of a chimp genome of course you would get a chimp.
That contradicts your argument. You claimed that no amount of mutations could ever result in anything that is not human. Obviously, this can happen.
The thing is you seem to think that a mere accumulation of random mutations could change one species into another. I see no reason why you would get anything but a variation on the species, simply some new characteristics of what is clearly a chimp for instance.
You just spelled it out. If those mutations happened in the human genome then you would get a chimp.
It also seems to me that each species' genome must have some sequences that define the most fundamental characteristics of the creature and that for some reason those don't change.
Of the genetic differences that separate humans and chimps, which are you saying could not be produced by known mechanisms of mutation?
I think the number of mutations you believe could bring about such a coherent new genome would far sooner destroy the genome than get anything coherent out of it at all.
Then how are humans able to survive with 40 million differences compared to the chimp genome?
I don't think you could ever get a different species from any number of mutations in any given genome because I think the genome defines the basic structure of a species in such a way that it can't ever make anything other than the species it makes.
But you just said that adding the 40 million mutations that separates humans from chimps would make a chimp from the human genome. How do you explain this?
All you can ever get from mutations over long periods of time is either total destruction of the genome and the creature starting with all kinds of diseases and deformities, or in the case of useful mutations, which we know are very rare, all you'd ever get are changes in the superficial characteristics that are defined by given gene sequences, different textures and colors etc, no structural changes except of course different sizes and that sort of change such as we see in cats and dogs.
Again, how are humans able to live with 40 million mutations compared to the chimp genome?
You think those forty million differences are mutations, I do not. That much ought to be clear from everything I've said. I think the differences are built in from Creation.
You have already stated that they will have the same effect, so there is no difference between them.
I was only saying that IF you could get a chimp genome from a human genome you'd get a chimp. But I don't think it's possible at all, and mutations certainly couldn't do it.
Show me the differences between the human and chimp genomes that natural processes could not produce, and the reasoning you used to reach that conclusion. For example, this comparison of chimp and human mmp9
If we find mechanics that may look, "transitional" in certain vehicles does this mean cars also evolved?
You would have to show how the transitional mechanics fit into a nested hierarchy. This is the concept creationists consistently ignore, the nested hierarchy. If we were to find a fossil that is transitional between mammals and birds it would FALSIFY evolution. It is the PATTERN of transitionals that evidences evolution.
I am not sure if you want an answer to the question, "what would a transitional fossil look like." Call me silly but it seems you would be implying that if one is qualified that we can then affirm the notion that it actually was one, which would seem like an extremely basic error in reason from my perspective.
The theory of evolution predicts that humans and other apes share a common ancestor. That same theory also predicts that there were, at one time, species with a mixture of earlier ape features and modern human features. Why wouldn't a fossil with a mixture of earlier ape and modern human features be evidence in support of that prediction?
With forms such as amphibians, fish, whales, there are so many variances anatomically that this almost guarantees a smorgasboard of features of which a small percentage may appear to be transitioning from one form to another, but here is the important point; EVEN IF LOGICALLY NO SUCH TRANSITION IN ACTUALITY, TOOK PLACE.
Then why don't we see a smorgasboard of features? Why don't we see mammal to bird transitionals, or lizard to whale transitionals? Why do we only see the transitionals predicted by a nested hierarchy, the same pattern that the theory of evolution predicts we should see?
There are multiple violations of your proposed hierarchy. For example, there are models of light trucks and cars that share the same engine while two cars from the same model have different engines. Automobiles do not fit into a nested hierarchy.
This is a weak hand because the same thing occurs with evolution, it's called "homplasy".
Homoplasies are extremely rare in evolutionary trees, but they are rampant in any attempt at putting vehicles in a nested hierarchy. Vehicles don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Complex eukaryotes do. That's the difference.
My original point is that we can PROVE there are similar features in vehicles, you can make many look like "transitions", which logically PROVES, that a transitional can exist with designed things.
Your point is worthless since it is the nested hierarchy that evidences evolution, and your examples don't fall into a nested hierarchy.
But you don't, nobody here does, you all have a lot of assumptions and imagination and can't possibly explain how you could get from one species to another.
We have the genomes which tell us all of the mutations that are needed. You don't have to assume or imagine anything. They are right there. The explanation for how humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with other apes is the mutations that separate us from other species.
Normal alleles are enough to distinguish one genome from another. Mutations just muddy things up. If they do anything viable at all they change an existing allele which affects a single gene that is part of the genome of the species, they don't do anything at all to introduce anything new to the genome that could ever begin the process of producing a completely new species.
Then how do you explain the physical differences between chimps and humans if it isn't the genetic differences that separate them? What causes those physical differences if it isn't mutations?
Think of how many things would have to be changed by your mutations even if they did change such basic things, and don't forget to take into account that most of the changes are not going to be beneficial and many will be deleterious, and somebody here recently pointed out that mutations to HOX genes that govern basic structure tend to produce monsters. The whole theory is just impossible.
If most mutations are deleterious, then how are humans able to survive with 40 million mutations compared to the chimp genome? If we look at other species there are even more differences. How is this possible?