Can any creationist tell me ...

[Polymath257]

According to the theory of evolution, when one species evolves from another, the other species that one evolved from cease to exist, but yet the apes are still here ?

No, why would you think that the older species necessarily ceases to exist?

It is quite common for populations to split and the two (or more) sub-populations to evolve in different ways.

Now, in fact, the ape species we evolved from do *not* still exist. The populations split and the other branches became the apes we see today. Our branch became us.

 

[DavidFirth]

Yes. It's been observed. Here.
Estimating the human mutation rate using autozygosity in a founder population : Nature Genetics : Nature Research


Knowledge of the rate and pattern of new mutation is critical to the understanding of human disease and evolution. We used extensive autozygosity in a genealogically well-defined population of Hutterites to estimate the human sequence mutation rate over multiple generations. We sequenced whole genomes from 5 parent-offspring trios and identified 44 segments of autozygosity. Using the number of meioses separating each pair of autozygous alleles and the 72 validated heterozygous single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) from 512 Mb of autozygous DNA, we obtained an SNV mutation rate of 1.20 × 10−8 (95% confidence interval 0.89–1.43 × 10−8) mutations per base pair per generation. The mutation rate for bases within CpG dinucleotides (9.72 × 10−8) was 9.5-fold that of non-CpG bases, and there was strong evidence (P = 2.67 × 10−4) for a paternal bias in the origin of new mutations (85% paternal). We observed a non-uniform distribution of heterozygous SNVs (both newly identified and known) in the autozygous segments (P = 0.001), which is suggestive of mutational hotspots or sites of long-range gene conversion.

View full text

"We used extensive autozygosity in a genealogically well-defined population of Hutterites to estimate..."

Estimations are not well defined observations of macroevolution.

"We observed a non-uniform distribution of heterozygous SNVs (both newly identified and known) in the autozygous segments (P = 0.001), which is suggestive..."

Suggestive isn't conclusive.

This is just scientific attempts that come up short of a definite conclusion, in the author's own words.

 

[DavidFirth]

Yes, actually, we do. You can dismiss the evidence, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Look up Hox genes sometime, along with mutations in downstream regulating genes.

Show it to me, then, if you can.

 

[Polymath257]

"We used extensive autozygosity in a genealogically well-defined population of Hutterites to estimate..."

Estimations are not well defined observations of macroevolution.

"We observed a non-uniform distribution of heterozygous SNVs (both newly identified and known) in the autozygous segments (P = 0.001), which is suggestive..."

Suggestive isn't conclusive.

This is just scientific attempts that come up short of a definite conclusion, in the author's own words.

Which again, just shows you don't comprehend the natural caution of the scientist. When they say 'perhaps', it usually means more than 'beyond reasonable doubt' in a courtroom.

Ex: do you know what the p=.001 means?

 

[DavidFirth]

Polymath, stop with your laughing and post some definite proof that macroevolution is being observed happening right now. I'm not laughing at you, I'm beginning to think you're just some crackpot who believes in estimates and suggestions and I'm tempted to just ignore you..

 

[DavidFirth]

Which again, just shows you don't comprehend the natural caution of the scientist. When they say 'perhaps', it usually means more than 'beyond reasonable doubt' in a courtroom.

Ex: do you know what the p=.001 means?

Usually? You expect me to believe you based on "usually"? The word "usually" isn't used in Genesis 1 & 2 at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Polymath, stop with your laughing and post some definite proof that macroevolution is being observed happening right now. I'm not laughing at you, I'm beginning to think you're just some idiot who believes in estimates and suggestions and I'm attempted to just ignore you..

Go ahead and ignore me, then. In the *real* world, there is no 100% on any knowledge. ALL measurements have error bars and all deductions from that evidence have confidence levels.

If you can't handle the real world, that isn't *my* problem.

 

[Polymath257]

Usually? You expect me to believe you based on "usually"? The word "usually" isn't used in Genesis 1 & 2 at all.

Precisely why it isn't reliable.

 

[sayak83]

"We used extensive autozygosity in a genealogically well-defined population of Hutterites to estimate..."

Estimations are not well defined observations of macroevolution.

"We observed a non-uniform distribution of heterozygous SNVs (both newly identified and known) in the autozygous segments (P = 0.001), which is suggestive..."

Suggestive isn't conclusive.

This is just scientific attempts that come up short of a definite conclusion, in the author's own words.

The estimate is the average rate of Mutation in human species in general. The number of mutations found along the germ line of the families were actually observed and are not estimates.

 

[DavidFirth]

Go ahead and ignore me, then. In the *real* world, there is no 100% on any knowledge. ALL measurements have error bars and all deductions from that evidence have confidence levels.

If you can't handle the real world, that isn't *my* problem.

In other words you have not and are not observing macroevolution happening in the here and now. Thank you for finally saying that in your own way.

 

[DavidFirth]

The estimate is the average rate of Mutation in human species in general. The number of mutations found along the germ line of the families were actually observed and are not estimates.

I didn't deduce that from that article. Quote where he says he definitely saw macroevolution changes in the article.

 

[Polymath257]

In other words you have not and are not observing macroevolution happening in the here and now. Thank you for finally saying that in your own way.

Wow, we haven't seen changes that happen over the course of 50,000 years in the last century. But we have found evidence for such changes in the fossil record.

You consider that a problem???

 

[DavidFirth]

Precisely why it isn't reliable.

So if your scientists don't use that terminology you just discount whatever they say. You aren't making any sense.

 

[DavidFirth]

Wow, we haven't seen changes that happen over the course of 50,000 years in the last century. But we have found evidence for such changes in the fossil record.

You consider that a problem???

No, you observe the fossil record and reason within yourselves that you see macroevolution happening. I'm not convinced by what you and scientists think. Where's the beef?

 

[Polymath257]

So if your scientists don't use that terminology you just discount whatever they say. You aren't making any sense.

Anything claiming to be science that doesn't have error bars is simply lying about being science. Genesis, whatever else it is, is not science. It isn't even close to being so.

 

[Polymath257]

No, you observe the fossil record and reason within yourselves that you see macroevolution happening. I'm not convinced by what you and scientists think. Where's the beef?

What is your specific objection to that evidence? We have the times when those fossils formed. We have the changes in the species from those different times, showing a progression (and branching).

What, exactly, do you think is missing? Do we need to show each and every generation together with the mating that happened at each stage?

 

[DavidFirth]

Anything claiming to be science that doesn't have error bars is simply lying about being science. Genesis, whatever else it is, is not science. It isn't even close to being so.

You just made the ignore list. According to you we should believe everything as we think it is instead of attempting to prove it beyond doubt. That is stupid. I will hear of your foolishness no more. God bless you and have a good life.

 

[sayak83]

I didn't deduce that from that article. Quote where he says he definitely saw macroevolution changes in the article.

My article was in reply to the following post you made.

The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring. These occur in reproductive cells like eggs and sperm and are called germ line mutations.

Mutations (2 of 2)

So let's see some changes in the reproductive cells from generation to generation. That should be possible and happening.

The article provides the information you wanted on the bolded sentence.

Now let's look at the article



"Knowledge of the rate and pattern of new mutation is critical to the understanding of human disease and evolution. We used extensive autozygosity in a genealogically well-defined population of Hutterites to estimate the human sequence mutation rate over multiple generations. "

Note here what the bolded sentence means. The actual mutation data from a group of Hutterite folks is collected and used to estimate the average mutation rate per generation for entire human kind. This becomes clear in the next section.


" We sequenced whole genomes from 5 parent-offspring trios and identified 44 segments of autozygosity. Using the number of meioses separating each pair of autozygous alleles and the 72 validated heterozygous single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) from 512 Mb of autozygous DNA, we obtained an SNV mutation rate of 1.20 × 10−8 (95% confidence interval 0.89–1.43 × 10−8) mutations per base pair per generation. "

Here also, note what is being observed. 5 parent offspring trios DNA were actually sequenced and 72 locations where germ line mutations have happened from parent to child were actually identified. Based on this actual number of observed germ line mutations, statistical methods are used to conclude that there is 95% probability that average Mutation rate for humans in general are 0.89-1.43 ×10^-8 mutations per base pair per generation. It's this general Mutation rate that is an estimate (and a good one, method is no different from calculating the average lifespan of people from data sampled from a subset of population). However the actual number of observed germ line mutations in these parent-child sets is directly observed AND not an estimate.


" The mutation rate for bases within CpG dinucleotides (9.72 × 10−8) was 9.5-fold that of non-CpG bases, and there was strong evidence (P = 2.67 × 10−4) for a paternal bias in the origin of new mutations (85% paternal)."

Here the article is talking of patterns found in the directly observed Mutation sites that provides evidence that 85% of the mutations came from the fathers germ line. This is an important topic of research as paternal age increases number of inherited Mutations and and this increases risk of inherited genetic diseases since about 5% of mutations are harmful.

"We observed a non-uniform distribution of heterozygous SNVs (both newly identified and known) in the autozygous segments (P = 0.001), which is suggestive of mutational hotspots or sites of long-range gene conversion."

This part is more speculative and the researchers are saying that the distribution of observed mutations are indicating that some DNA regions are more prone to suffer from Mutation changes than others. This is more of telling something that may be the topic of further research by other groups.

Thus I have shown the research paper provides exactly the observation you were asking for.

 

[Faithofchristian]

No, why would you think that the older species necessarily ceases to exist?

It is quite common for populations to split and the two (or more) sub-populations to evolve in different ways.

Now, in fact, the ape species we evolved from do *not* still exist. The populations split and the other branches became the apes we see today. Our branch became us.

Oh I see now, before evolutionist claimed man came from the apes like the chimpanzees, but now your switching from what evolutionist said the first time. Now that's amazing. It seems when people get caught on a subject, they switch it around to fit their agenda in another way.

Can't you evolutionist make up your minds as to which way you want to go ?

 

[sayak83]

Oh I see now, before evolutionist claimed man came from the apes like the chimpanzees, but now your switching from what evolutionist said the first time. Now that's amazing. It seems when people get caught on a subject, they switch it around to fit their agenda in another way.

Can't you evolutionist make up your minds as to which way you want to go ?

If Americans came from England, why are there still English folk?