Victory for evolution in Texas

[Phenomanul]

Hurt my feelings? The day monkey references hurt my feels will be the day Jesus comes out of the clouds and says Phenomanul is my homeboy. Nice of you to add lying to the list, though. Mouse may have said it, but you made it your own when you used it in a manner intended to hurt. Man up to your actions.

I never claimed to be a microbiology expert nor even moderetly versed in the subject for that matter. Don't believe I ever engaged anyone here on the subject.

There's no point in engaging you in any of this. The moment you can't explain things, you chalk it up to supernatural. Like I said, we've been down this path before.

That's the point... no one here can explain origins... at least not scientifically (because it's an ABSOLUTE event that happened in the past). Yet the implication people here always make is that we should just assume life happened, that it was a chance process, and here we are...

I've never denied that my belief that "a Creator was involved in this process" is a faith-based argument.

My contention has been that those on the other-side-of-the-fence, have indirectly built their scientific world view on the premise that the origins of life question can be answered naturalistically... But that hasn't happened yet, nor I believe it can be proven. While that perspective is entirely up to you all... you can't honestly sit here and mock the intellectual capacity of others simply becuase they don't conform to that belief...

[Phenomanul]

It ceases becoming tangential when you accuse me of dishonesty. "RG will tweak the numbers so it changes".

Then it becomes rather important, so, again, stop ing about it. We can get to your central idea in due time. The internet ain't going anywhere.

I only said that because it is your M.O. to do so (and have done so to some of my other back-of-the-envelope calculations in the past)... you're our resident mathmatician...

Dishonesty??? hmmm not so much my implied accusation... more so along the lines that I know you look at every problem with a different set of glasses...

[MannyIsGod]

That's the point... no one here can explain origins... at least not scientifically (because it's an ABSOLUTE event that happened in the past). Yet the implication people here always make is that we should just assume life happened, that it was a chance process, and here we are...

No, thats not the implication at all. The implication is that we don't know.

I've never denied that my belief that "a Creator was involved in this process" is a faith-based argument.

My contention has been that those on the other-side-of-the-fence, have indirectly built their scientific world view on the premise that the origins of life question can be answered naturalistically... But that hasn't happened yet, nor I believe it can be proven. While that perspective is entirely up to you all... you can't honestly sit here and mock the intellectual capacity of others simply becuase they don't conform to that belief...

Ok.

[Phenomanul]

If I said something along the lines of, "All Christians are idiots, and they deserve to have their voting privileges taken away", would that NOT be a bomb because I didn't name anyone specifically?

I typically don't respond to all such references... people here make opinionated comments such as mine, or your example above, all the time...

Thanks for the admittance. While it wasn't a direct personal attack, it still was an attack. I take umbrage to being lumped into one category and then skewered on the basis of that category.

Fair enough... it was an exaggerated generalization, I know...

[MannyIsGod]

Seriously, Phenomanul you insult people without quite a bit and whether its you not realizing it or just ignoring it you really should drop the martyr act. Don't take my word for it, ask others.

[RandomGuy]

Assumptions made to complete calculation:

1) Humans and bacteria mutate (add beneficial mutations) at the same generational rate, or 50% more (3 mutations as opposed to 2)

First, I will point out that your contention with assumption No. 1 was only loosely defined as a starting point. I believe I clearly stated that the propagation dynamics of beneficial mutations between sexual organisms and asexual ones were markedly different. (Again, are you even reading my posts?) The implication being that sexual organisms have more numerical probability hurdles to overcome before their mutations are successfully passed down to the next generation.

The fact that I would then use the gene mutation rate from Lenski's experiment to represent the propagation rate for that of sexual organisms would be a conservative assumption, not one that helps my cause... NOTE: I was using the do ented rate produced by Lenski's asexual organisms, because that's all we can use given his methods, and his results... To speculate as to why the rate should be higher, while valid, has not been confirmed in the lab setting... EVEN THEN, the resulting numbers from this quick exercise aren't favorable to the timeframe that is generally accepted for the evolutionary model of human descent...

This is a bit less than clear. To my reading you are saying a couple of contradictory things here, so let's see if I get this right:

You are saying that, the of rate of beneficial mutations, per generation, for bacteria is greater than that, per generation of a single line, sexually reproducing human?

i.e. bacteria rate > sexually reproducing rate

And your assumption of 3 per 31,500 generations was intended to be overly generous?

[LnGrrrR]

If I ask the question:

Do you want pickles on your sandwich for lunch?

The answer is not a 5 paragraph rambling polemic.

"You see, pickles are really just cu bers. So when you ask me if I would like pickles on my sandwich, what you're really asking if whether or not I would like a modified cu ber.

Interestingly enough, cu bers of themselves are not popular lunch condiments, but pickles tend to be. Of course, since pickles ARE cu bers, in essence, cu bers ARE popular, but not in their unmodified format.

So when someone asks me if I want pickles, what they're also asking is if I want a form of cu ber. The two can't be fully separated, even though their tastes are separate. Also (even though it's a tangent), I noticed no price given for said pickles. Am I to assume these pickles are free? Technically, nothing in this world is "free" as it requires some form of investment, whether it be time, money, or even brain processing power to answer the question. Without knowing the true cost of these mofidied cu bers, I'm stuck in a conundrum, perhaps wanting them but unsure fully.

Finally, the relevancy of wanting pickles on my sandwich lies predicate upon which sandwich I pick, and ultimately, whether I even want a sandwich or not! If I choose not to partake of the sandwich, could I still have the modified cu bers? Usually, pickles are sliced, and rarely does one eat sliced pickles without some other form of food upon which they are placed. You could be offering me a full pickle, but then how would one fit that on a sandwich?

Ultimately, the answer is predicated on a long list of unanswered questions that may SEEM extraneous but are an inherent part of any bread-based food-layered item for consumption, and these questions must be answered before any further progress on the yes-or-no-edness of my answer can be determined."

[Phenomanul]

Right, you got me. I claimed that you whine and play the martyr.

Your response was to whine and play the martyr.

Good talk.

So says you...

Good talk indeed...

[LnGrrrR]

I typically don't respond to all such references... people here make opinionated comments such as mine, or your example above, all the time...

Yes, but the people who do that tend to be regarded as dolts. Which is why I try to refrain from it most of the time.

Fair enough... it was an exaggerated generalization, I know...

[ElNono]

EVEN THEN, the numbers aren't favorable when compared to the accepted timeframe of the evolutionary model of human descent...

I don't agree with this. Specifically because the ~6 million year wasn't a number just thrown into the air, but actually tested by two different methods: immunological antigens and then more recently and with higher precision using molecular genetics from recovered fossils. They both pretty much match in numbers even though they're two pretty distinct methods.

Second, the 40 million base pairs difference between Humans and Chimps was obtained from one of the articles I have in my office. The reference is listed below:

Fujiyama, Asao, Hidemi Watanabe, et al., (2002), “Construction and Analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map,” Science, 295:131-134, January 4.

This is were you're confused (wouldn't want to think you were intentionally misleading). You don't need '40 million changes' as in '40 million positive mutations'. Humans have over 3 billion base pairs, but outside of what's called junk DNA, that only makes up 20,000 to 25,000 actual protein coding genes. Meaning, a single mutation (good or bad) on one gene affects more than just a single base pair. You also need to understand that since mutation rate is fairly constant, about half of those changes happened in the human lineage alone.

You also seem to think that organisms don't evolve with gene loss, and that's another concept that's wrong. For example, losing certain gene functionality is reap for selection to act on. Furthermore, losing certain genes can actually change the protein coding in a way that's beneficial for the organism (look up research on the long lost CASPASE12 gene).

There's actually do ented that humans lost roughly 80 genes from the common ancestor with chimps.

Obviously, there's more than just genetic mutations that are involved in evolution. RNA also has a hand with it's own evolution process.

And lest I forget, my central argument in this thread has been:

Some rant about atheists and how people should live their lives

I kid, but you did blast the door open that way. My understanding of your take is that you're proposing a bar of evidence that it's simply unattainable (at least at this point in time), and it's not the same bar used by the scientific community to conduct their research or invalidate their findings. It's a convenient position to put yourself in, but it isn't a position taken by science in general, and I frankly see little reason why anybody else should.

[ElNono]

That's the point... no one here can explain origins... at least not scientifically (because it's an ABSOLUTE event that happened in the past). Yet the implication people here always make is that we should just assume life happened, that it was a chance process, and here we are...

There's some theories out there, like the Big Bang, the primordial soup, etc. You're free to subscribe to them or not, but what you can't do is propose a theory that's not falsifiable and try to sneak it in as 'science'. Which is what the point of the original article was all about.

I said a couple of times in this thread I have no problem with people believing in what they want to believe and teaching theology in theology classes. The problem I have is people trying to pass that up as science.

[Blake]

You quoted Blake's mocking statement, "Phenomanul itching to jump in"

luckily you have me on ignore so you can only see such hurtful and viscious posts when others quote me.

[Phenomanul]

This is a bit less than clear. To my reading you are saying a couple of contradictory things here, so let's see if I get this right:

You are saying that, the of rate of beneficial mutations, per generation, for bacteria is greater than that, per generation of a single line, sexually reproducing human?

i.e. bacteria rate > sexually reproducing rate

For the most part yes...

Off the top of my head, because:

1) The genomes of asexual organsims are typically not as advanced. They are not equipped with the genetic repair functions (genetic contingencies) that advanced sexual organisms such as 'the great apes' possess...

2) They are generally less protected against mutagens... (i.e. the gametes in a woman's ovaries or even our testicles are better shielded from mutagens than single celled organisms - as other systems in our bodies are designed to help eliminate the mutagens (ironically, including bacterial and viral mutagens)).

3) Reproductive selection factors aren't involved with asexual organisms.

And your assumption of 3 per 31,500 generations was intended to be overly generous?

My initial reference said "the ramifications of Lenski's experiment"...

I clearly stated that this was the do ented rate that Lenski's particular experiment produced. A rate that has been elegantly confirmed.

Picking an exact propagation rate to be the catch-all, be-all, end-all would be speculative... given the stated context that the noted experiment had already provided one...

[Phenomanul]

There's some theories out there, like the Big Bang, the primordial soup, etc. You're free to subscribe to them or not, but what you can't do is propose a theory that's not falsifiable and try to sneak it in as 'science'. Which is what the point of the original article was all about.

I said a couple of times in this thread I have no problem with people believing in what they want to believe and teaching theology in theology classes. The problem I have is people trying to pass that up as science.

I specifically said, belief in a Creator is a faith-based argument... not a scientific one...

[Phenomanul]

I don't agree with this. Specifically because the ~6 million year wasn't a number just thrown into the air, but actually tested by two different methods: immunological antigens and then more recently and with higher precision using molecular genetics from recovered fossils. They both pretty much match in numbers even though they're two pretty distinct methods.



This is were you're confused (wouldn't want to think you were intentionally misleading). You don't need '40 million changes' as in '40 million positive mutations'. Humans have over 3 billion base pairs, but outside of what's called junk DNA, that only makes up 20,000 to 25,000 actual protein coding genes. Meaning, a single mutation (good or bad) on one gene affects more than just a single base pair. You also need to understand that since mutation rate is fairly constant, about half of those changes happened in the human lineage alone.

You also seem to think that organisms don't evolve with gene loss, and that's another concept that's wrong. For example, losing certain gene functionality is reap for selection to act on. Furthermore, losing certain genes can actually change the protein coding in a way that's beneficial for the organism (look up research on the long lost CASPASE12 gene).

There's actually do ented that humans lost roughly 80 genes from the common ancestor with chimps.

Obviously, there's more than just genetic mutations that are involved in evolution. RNA also has a hand with it's own evolution process.



I kid, but you did blast the door open that way. My understanding of your take is that you're proposing a bar of evidence that it's simply unattainable (at least at this point in time), and it's not the same bar used by the scientific community to conduct their research or invalidate their findings. It's a convenient position to put yourself in, but it isn't a position taken by science in general, and I frankly see little reason why anybody else should.

I didn't imply 40 million changes were required... But, I'm pretty sure that this figure represents changes to more than just a handful of genes...

[ElNono]

I specifically said, belief in a Creator is a faith-based argument... not a scientific one...

I thought you were talking about origins, as in 'the origins of the universe/life, etc'.
My fault.

[RandomGuy]

Facts stated:
2) "there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome…"

Second, the 40 million base pairs difference figure (approximate genetic difference between Humans and Chimps) was obtained from one of the articles I have in my office. The reference is listed below:

Fujiyama, Asao, Hidemi Watanabe, et al., (2002), “Construction and Analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map,” Science, 295:131-134, January 4.

This article oddly enough is widely quoted as a creationist rebuttal to the fact that humans and chimps share 98%+ of our genes. Surprise.

Read the article. It would appear that the 40 million base pair difference is a figure calculated by using some of the data presented.

The authors themselves do not clearly delineate how many base pair differences there were.

It is also somewhat dated, from 2001, and relies on the work then available to form conclusions. (Received for publication 8 August 2001. Accepted for publication 13 November 2001. )


Can you show me how you derived your 40 million base pairs figure using the information in the article?

Also, since your calculation involves only "beneficial" mutations, I assume this figure, if valid, is ONLY beneficial mutations? i.e. no "neutral" or deleterious ones.

I am of course, assuming you have participated in the calculation of this 40 million figure, and not simply repeating something you read somewhere. There are other problems with this, but I will leave it there for now.

[Blake]

"You see, pickles are really just cu bers. So when you ask me if I would like pickles on my sandwich, what you're really asking if whether or not I would like a modified cu ber.

Interestingly enough, cu bers of themselves are not popular lunch condiments, but pickles tend to be. Of course, since pickles ARE cu bers, in essence, cu bers ARE popular, but not in their unmodified format.

So when someone asks me if I want pickles, what they're also asking is if I want a form of cu ber. The two can't be fully separated, even though their tastes are separate. Also (even though it's a tangent), I noticed no price given for said pickles. Am I to assume these pickles are free? Technically, nothing in this world is "free" as it requires some form of investment, whether it be time, money, or even brain processing power to answer the question. Without knowing the true cost of these mofidied cu bers, I'm stuck in a conundrum, perhaps wanting them but unsure fully.

Finally, the relevancy of wanting pickles on my sandwich lies predicate upon which sandwich I pick, and ultimately, whether I even want a sandwich or not! If I choose not to partake of the sandwich, could I still have the modified cu bers? Usually, pickles are sliced, and rarely does one eat sliced pickles without some other form of food upon which they are placed. You could be offering me a full pickle, but then how would one fit that on a sandwich?

Ultimately, the answer is predicated on a long list of unanswered questions that may SEEM extraneous but are an inherent part of any bread-based food-layered item for consumption, and these questions must be answered before any further progress on the yes-or-no-edness of my answer can be determined."

when I go to Quiznos, I don't really know where the pickles come from, but I just look at my sandwich and know it was intelligently designed.

[ElNono]

I didn't imply 40 million changes were required... But, I'm pretty sure that this figure represents changes to more than just a handful of genes...

But you did. I can go back to look at the quote, but paraphrasing, you said it took Lenski's experiment 30,000+ generations for a qualitative mutation, and then you extrapolated that to assert that such slow rate had implications in the timeline from human to chimpanzee mutations, which have over 40 million 'changes'.

You were:
a) comparing apples to oranges (base pair changes vs constrained gene mutation)
b) implying that only qualitative mutations can advance the species
c) not taking into account that Lenski's experiment was controlled and specifically slowed down for studying
d) extrapolating such controlled experiment to real life while being fully aware that things like the environment have a major say on mutations

[Phenomanul]

Facts stated:
2) "there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome…"



This article oddly enough is widely quoted as a creationist rebuttal. Surprise.

Read the article. It would appear that the 40 million base pair difference is a figure calculated by using some of the data presented.

The authors themselves do not clearly delineate how many base pair differences there were.

It is also somewhat dated, from 2001, and relies on the work then available to form conclusions.

Can you show me how you derived your 40 million base pairs figure using the information in the article?

Also, since your calculation involves only "beneficial" mutations, I assume this figure, if valid, is ONLY beneficial mutations? i.e. no "neutral" or deleterious ones.

I am of course, assuming you have participated in the calculation of this 40 million figure, and not simply repeating something you read somewhere. There are other problems with this, but I will leave it there for now.

I've not participated in this research personally... seems like a rather unpractical and unreasonable request that I provide first hand data, when you could use your very own numbers (or maybe ElNono's... as one of you quoted a 98.5% difference between the two representative genomes [I've seen quoted figures as low as 95%, and 96%])... So given the representative size of our two genomes what would the difference in base pairs be?

Half of that figure... i.e. 20 million base pairs...??? 15 million base pairs...??? you pick a number... (like I said we usually set up our mathematical expressions differently)...

I still contend that these lower figures still represent more than just a handful of variant genes between the divergent lineages (err. allegedly divergent)...

[RandomGuy]

But you did. I can go back to look at the quote, but paraphrasing, you said it took Lenski's experiment 30,000+ generations for a qualitative mutation, and then you extrapolated that to assert that such slow rate had implications in the timeline from human to chimpanzee mutations, which have over 40 million 'changes'.

You were:
a) comparing apples to oranges (base pair changes vs constrained gene mutation)
b) implying that only qualitative mutations can advance the species
c) not taking into account that Lenski's experiment was controlled and specifically slowed down for studying
d) extrapolating such controlled experiment to real life while being fully aware that things like the environment have a major say on mutations

Pretty much. That's why I said it was a "messy" assumption.

I have identified a bit more that is wrong with his argument that I will get to in due time. As I said, I think it is representative of the quality of creationist arguments in general, i.e. very poorly reasoned, with no small amount of distortion of scientific fact/theory.

I am fairly confident I can show this, assuming, of course, that PM finishes what he started.

[Phenomanul]

But you did. I can go back to look at the quote, but paraphrasing, you said it took Lenski's experiment 30,000+ generations for a qualitative mutation, and then you extrapolated that to assert that such slow rate had implications in the timeline from human to chimpanzee mutations, which have over 40 million 'changes'.

You were:
a) comparing apples to oranges (base pair changes vs constrained gene mutation)
b) implying that only qualitative mutations can advance the species
c) not taking into account that Lenski's experiment was controlled and specifically slowed down for studying
d) extrapolating such controlled experiment to real life while being fully aware that things like the environment have a major say on mutations

It doesn't matter if it took 20+ years to obtain 31,000+ generations in his lab... or if this could have happened within 5 years in the wild...

His experiment already provides the number of generations...!!!

[Phenomanul]

Pretty much. That's why I said it was a "messy" assumption.

I have identified a bit more that is wrong with his argument that I will get to in due time. As I said, I think it is representative of the quality of creationist arguments in general, i.e. very poorly reasoned, with no small amount of distortion of scientific fact/theory.

I am fairly confident I can show this, assuming, of course, that PM finishes what he started.

Sure... as soon as you address why you claimed my central argument [in this thread] was invalid... especially after you stated on three occasions that I never clearly stated what that was... that it was obfuscated...

Here I'll simplify it... "Macroevolution is not a proven fact. People should stop saying it is..."

[RandomGuy]

(duplicate post)

[RandomGuy]

2) "there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome…"

Source?

Science 4 January 2002:
Vol. 295 no. 5552 pp. 131-134
DOI: 10.1126/science.1065199

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5552/131.full#T2

I read that article, it doesn't say "40 million base pair difference" anywhere, can you show me how you got that?

I've not participated in this research personally... seems like a rather unpractical and unreasonable request that I provide first hand data, when you could use your very own numbers (or maybe ElNono's... as one of you quoted a 98.5% difference between the two representative genomes [I've seen quoted figures as low as 95%, and 96%])... So given the representative size of our two genomes what would the difference in base pairs be?

Half of that figure... i.e. 20 million base pairs...??? 15 million base pairs...??? you pick a number... (like I said we usually set up our mathematical expressions differently)...

I still contend that these lower figures still represent more than just a handful of variant genes between the divergent lineages (err. allegedly divergent)...

So, the answer is, essentially, "No I cannot really support my figure, now that you have actually read my source and called me on it".

Moving on:
Your original comparison was comparing "beneficial mutations", yet you used a specific, unsupportable number of "base pairs".

Do mutations only ever affect one base pair at at time?