Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Like many creationists, you seem to confuse evolution with atheism. They are quite different. Do you need me to explain the difference, or do you get it?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists, please provide evidence
- Thread starter evolved yet?
- Start date
newhope101
Active Member
camanintx Quote..Human and chimp Y chromosomes are 98.3% similar compared to 98.8% for the rest of the genome. How is this rate of change too much for evolution to account for?
What has your question got to do with what I posted?
It is your own researchers that state the human and chimp Y chromosome is comparable to the chicken and human at 310 millions years of separation..that's why they have to attribute this discepancy to accelerated evolution.
The same with the mouse genome being 99% similar to humans when they shouldn't be...ACCELERATED EVOLUTION again is invented or theorised to align the evidence with Toe...and there are more examples. Obviously without accelerated evolution to explain some certain discrepencies, your TOE is dead. It is too late really. I can already see the cover up, as I am sure many others can.
What the mouse/human similarity tells me is that percentage similarity means nothing in relation to ancestry. Similarity is due to the same designer leaving his signature on all of creation. The signature of life and all that life requires to be alive and adapt.
It is about the differences, not similarities. The differences you are finding in RNA regulation and expression and perhaps epigenetics are going to illustrate what exactly makes all creatures unique. It is obviously not the genes they have or share.
My prediction is that your evolutionary science, itself, will find what stops one kind evolving into another kind. It may have already begun.
What has your question got to do with what I posted?
It is your own researchers that state the human and chimp Y chromosome is comparable to the chicken and human at 310 millions years of separation..that's why they have to attribute this discepancy to accelerated evolution.
The same with the mouse genome being 99% similar to humans when they shouldn't be...ACCELERATED EVOLUTION again is invented or theorised to align the evidence with Toe...and there are more examples. Obviously without accelerated evolution to explain some certain discrepencies, your TOE is dead. It is too late really. I can already see the cover up, as I am sure many others can.
What the mouse/human similarity tells me is that percentage similarity means nothing in relation to ancestry. Similarity is due to the same designer leaving his signature on all of creation. The signature of life and all that life requires to be alive and adapt.
It is about the differences, not similarities. The differences you are finding in RNA regulation and expression and perhaps epigenetics are going to illustrate what exactly makes all creatures unique. It is obviously not the genes they have or share.
My prediction is that your evolutionary science, itself, will find what stops one kind evolving into another kind. It may have already begun.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Human and chimp genomes contain about 3 billion base pairs each. At any time, a single individual human or chimp has about 170 mutations in its DNA. Considering the billions of individual humans and chimps which have existed in the 6 million years since we shared a common ancestor, we should be asking ourselves why our DNA isn't more different. Fortunately, biologists are on top of this.
Evolution caught in the act: Scientists measure how quickly genomes change
If you are going to raise the hypothesis that common ancestry is not true, you will first have to identify a mechanism which prevents the genome from drifting over time. Until then, I predict that your prediction will not pan out.
David M
Well-Known Member
Its not, you are misrepresenting the facts. They do not say the chromosomes are comparable,they say that the rates of evolution are comparable (and in fact I probably need to go back to the paper to find out what they actually said about 310 million years rather than what you think they meant).
Stop misrepresenting the facts, the mouse genome is not 99% similar to the human genome.
Is this actually your problem? That you are so deeply ignorant of science and language that you actually can't understand what is said in the things you cut and paste. Or do you just not bother reading things before you reference them.
Except that this similarity exists only in your head because you are incapable of understanding the scientific papers you quote.
newhope101
Active Member
David M..I have had a gut full of your ignorance and total inability to come to terms with your own evolutionary research.
Scientists think that the mouse genome will be even important than the human genome to medicine and human welfare. That seems bizarre: why is that? The reason is that, because of the relatively 'recent' divergence of the mouse and human lineages from our common ancestor (about 75 million years ago), an astonishing 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans. Not only that, but great tracts of code are syntenic - that means the genes appear in the same order in the two genomes.
Since we can experiment on the mouse genome (we obviously cannot do that with people), the mouse will be a hugely valuable model to understand the function and operation of the genetic machinery in people. We already have incredibly precise tools to modify the mouse genome including the ability to delete or duplicate extensive tracts of code, the ability to knockout or knock-in single genes and even the ability to make single base substitutions.
The astonishingly close homology that has been revealed in the code between mouse and human genome extends to functionality. Many homologous genes have identical functions in the two species, anatomy, physiology and metabolism are similar and genetic disease pathology can be very similar. So the fact that we can study the mouse empirically, means that we can identify the functions of genes in people and both understand human disease pathology and create ways to treat it.
Science News
Chimp and Human Y Chromosomes Evolving Faster Than Expected
ScienceDaily (Jan. 15, 2010) Contrary to a widely held scientific theory that the mammalian Y chromosome is slowly decaying or stagnating, new evidence suggests that in fact the Y is actually evolving quite rapidly through continuous, wholesale renovation.
By conducting the first comprehensive interspecies comparison of Y chromosomes, Whitehead Institute researchers have found considerable differences in the genetic sequences of the human and chimpanzee Ys -- an indication that these chromosomes have evolved more quickly than the rest of their respective genomes over the 6 million years since they emerged from a common ancestor. The findings are published online this week in the journal Nature.
"The region of the Y that is evolving the fastest is the part that plays a role in sperm production," say Jennifer Hughes, first author on the Nature paper and a postdoctoral researcher in Whitehead Institute Director David Page's lab. "The rest of the Y is evolving more like the rest of the genome, only a little bit faster."
The chimp Y chromosome is only the second Y chromosome to be comprehensively sequenced. The original chimp genome sequencing completed in 2005 largely excluded the Y chromosome because its hundreds of repetitive sections typically confound standard sequencing techniques. Working closely with the Genome Center at Washington University, the Page lab managed to painstakingly sequence the chimp Y chromosome, allowing for comparison with the human Y, which the Page lab and the Genome Center at Washington University had sequenced successfully back in 2003.
The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content. The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes--a significant change in a relatively short period of time. Page points out that this is not all about gene decay or loss. He likens the Y chromosome changes to a home undergoing continual renovation.
Which part of "differ remarkably" are you unable to grasp in relation to the Y chromosome? What part of of the mouse genome 99%
So again sideling woffle from someone that knows les than me about their own evo sciences and is prepared to strain any point to distraction to evade having to supply an appropriate refute.
I've had a gut full of all of you pretenders. None of you can do anything more that ignore your own research, demand repeated declaration of information, sheer stupidity, lies, and more sideling and evading than a bent politician.
This should be fairly simple even for a simpleton. The Y chromosome in the chimp and human is remakably different, when it was not expected to be so very different.
The fact that they are different supports the creation of chimps and humans individually. Your theories and assumptions of 'how' this came to be a fact is 'how' you turn this evidence into an evolutionary support. Only a fool or ignorant pretender would not be able to grasp the point.
Seeing as a precambrian human would still not be 'accepted' as evidence for creation then your acceptance of any evidence for creation is definitely not required..
What does the mouse genome draft tell us about evolution?
Alec MacAndrew
Click on the links below to explore various aspects of the mouse genome, its comparisons with the human genome and the consequences for evolutionary thinking:
Alec MacAndrew
Click on the links below to explore various aspects of the mouse genome, its comparisons with the human genome and the consequences for evolutionary thinking:
Introduction
The draft mouse genome was published on 6th December 2002 , Waterstone et al, Nature 420, 520 - 562 Note that this is a 43 page paper (Nature averages 2 -3 pages per paper) with around 200 authors and 330 references. This is all new to science and the volume of material is more than a very fat text book if one includes the references . The detail is published not in a single paper, but in about six related papers occupying more than half of the super fat 6th December issue of Nature.Scientists think that the mouse genome will be even important than the human genome to medicine and human welfare. That seems bizarre: why is that? The reason is that, because of the relatively 'recent' divergence of the mouse and human lineages from our common ancestor (about 75 million years ago), an astonishing 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans. Not only that, but great tracts of code are syntenic - that means the genes appear in the same order in the two genomes.
Since we can experiment on the mouse genome (we obviously cannot do that with people), the mouse will be a hugely valuable model to understand the function and operation of the genetic machinery in people. We already have incredibly precise tools to modify the mouse genome including the ability to delete or duplicate extensive tracts of code, the ability to knockout or knock-in single genes and even the ability to make single base substitutions.
The astonishingly close homology that has been revealed in the code between mouse and human genome extends to functionality. Many homologous genes have identical functions in the two species, anatomy, physiology and metabolism are similar and genetic disease pathology can be very similar. So the fact that we can study the mouse empirically, means that we can identify the functions of genes in people and both understand human disease pathology and create ways to treat it.
Science News
Chimp and Human Y Chromosomes Evolving Faster Than Expected
ScienceDaily (Jan. 15, 2010) Contrary to a widely held scientific theory that the mammalian Y chromosome is slowly decaying or stagnating, new evidence suggests that in fact the Y is actually evolving quite rapidly through continuous, wholesale renovation.
By conducting the first comprehensive interspecies comparison of Y chromosomes, Whitehead Institute researchers have found considerable differences in the genetic sequences of the human and chimpanzee Ys -- an indication that these chromosomes have evolved more quickly than the rest of their respective genomes over the 6 million years since they emerged from a common ancestor. The findings are published online this week in the journal Nature.
"The region of the Y that is evolving the fastest is the part that plays a role in sperm production," say Jennifer Hughes, first author on the Nature paper and a postdoctoral researcher in Whitehead Institute Director David Page's lab. "The rest of the Y is evolving more like the rest of the genome, only a little bit faster."
The chimp Y chromosome is only the second Y chromosome to be comprehensively sequenced. The original chimp genome sequencing completed in 2005 largely excluded the Y chromosome because its hundreds of repetitive sections typically confound standard sequencing techniques. Working closely with the Genome Center at Washington University, the Page lab managed to painstakingly sequence the chimp Y chromosome, allowing for comparison with the human Y, which the Page lab and the Genome Center at Washington University had sequenced successfully back in 2003.
The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content. The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes--a significant change in a relatively short period of time. Page points out that this is not all about gene decay or loss. He likens the Y chromosome changes to a home undergoing continual renovation.
Which part of "differ remarkably" are you unable to grasp in relation to the Y chromosome? What part of of the mouse genome 99%
So again sideling woffle from someone that knows les than me about their own evo sciences and is prepared to strain any point to distraction to evade having to supply an appropriate refute.
I've had a gut full of all of you pretenders. None of you can do anything more that ignore your own research, demand repeated declaration of information, sheer stupidity, lies, and more sideling and evading than a bent politician.
This should be fairly simple even for a simpleton. The Y chromosome in the chimp and human is remakably different, when it was not expected to be so very different.
The fact that they are different supports the creation of chimps and humans individually. Your theories and assumptions of 'how' this came to be a fact is 'how' you turn this evidence into an evolutionary support. Only a fool or ignorant pretender would not be able to grasp the point.
Seeing as a precambrian human would still not be 'accepted' as evidence for creation then your acceptance of any evidence for creation is definitely not required..
McBell
Admiral Obvious
McBell
Admiral Obvious
If she is not fed, then we will lose the mountains of laughs she provides.
Since she is completely unable to stay on topic....
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Interesting. This is the actual article I've posted over and over where all parties involved STILL maintain the ToE as fact.
But none of this has anything to do with the thread question.
What independent evidence have "creation scientist" discovered that shows "creation" to be an alternative theory?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
And this provides evidence for your hypothesis...how? Oh wait, you don't have one.
David M
Well-Known Member
Then you are not going to like this post either, so I'll proceed to rip this ignorant twaddle apart shall I?
The article you are pasting from is at
Mouse genome home
The whole thing provides a good explanation of why the sequencing of the mouse genome provides great evidence FOR common ancestry.
As the author points out "This is what was actually determined: 99% of mouse genes have homologues in man (the actual protein similarity is much less than 99%"
Do you know what homologues are in genetics? They are genes that have much less than 99% similarity in the protiens they produce. Homologues do not even have to have the same activity they just need to have a common origin.
So what the study found is not a 99% similarity in the genes of humans and mice but that 99% of the genes in humans and mice share the same origin even when they produce different protiens or have different functions. Common descent predicts that humans should share a very, very high percentage of homologous genes with all other mammals.
Do you know how much of the human genome does not align with the mouse genome? (remember you claimed 24% could not be aligned with chimps): Its 60%, much less similar to humans than what we have with chimps.
Of course what is really going to annoy you is that this was based on the draft mouse genome, the completed mouse genome sequencing found that 20% of mouse genes are not found in humans.
More Genetic Differences Between Mice And Humans Than Previously Thought
So apart from your misunderstanding of what the original paper claims it is now obvious that when it comes to comparing the genes of mice and humans there is at least a 20% difference.
As the article says
So what?
All this study shows is that it is faster than expected for 1 chromosome. It is also noted that the part that is evolving fastest involves sperm production, the rest of the Y chromosome is only evolving a little bit faster than other chromosomes.
Nothing in this report affects the massive similarity between all the other chimp and human chromosomes and nothing in this report calls into question evolution or the common ancestry between humans and chimps.
That would be the part where you misepresent what the scientists are saying. And its 80% for the mouse genome (or less).
You mean 2.7% different rather than 2.2% different, yes that is such a "remarkable" difference that it casts doubt on common descent.
I think not, the only waffle is in your ignorance of science and your repeated posting of articles that provide more and more evidence for evolution and common descent.
I can assure you the feeling is mutual, but mine is tempered by knowing that part of your problem is down to pure ignorance.
You are the one ignoring (and misrepresenting) research. And the one doing most of the rest.
Yes 2.7% different rather than 2.2% different, that does not make the 2 chromosomes remarkably different to each other it makes them remarkably similar. The only remarkable difference is the rate at which Y chromosomes are evolving when compared to other chromosomes.
So what if part of the Y chromosome is evolving fast, the truth of the matter is that is evolving and that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. Absolutely nothing you have posted (even when you don't misrepresent things) has cast a shadow of a doubt on that.
No it doesn't, its shows how chimps and humans have evolved since the time of their common ancestor.
You have no evidence for creation.
As Prof. Per Ahlberg said ""First understand, then criticize! Not the other way round."
Last edited:
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Saying that 99% of them have analogues is a far cry from being 99% similar.
And this is a problem for evolution how?
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
I've said this before to her using that article and a myriad of other ones she posted. The tripped out thing about it is these articles back up the ToE.
Here's What was actually said by the scientist involved.
Human Y Chromosome Stays Intact While Chimp Y Loses Genes
"Contrary to the dire predictions that have become popular over the last decade, the sky is *not* falling on the Y," says Whitehead Member and Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator David Page, senior author on the study that will appear in the September 1 issue of the journal Nature. "This research clearly demonstrates that natural selection has effectively preserved regions of the Y chromosome that have no mechanisms with which to repair damaged genes."
"For many years, it's been assumed that the Y chromosome is headed for extinction because, unlike other chromosomes, it has no genetic "mate" with which to swap genes. In 2003, Page published a landmark paper in Nature challenging that claim by demonstrating how a certain region of the Y chromosome possessed a unique mechanism for repairing mutated genes."
"We were looking for any evidence that the human Y has lost genes since parting ways with the chimp," says Hughes. "Had we found active genes on the chimp Y that had become inactive on the human, that would be the smoking gun. But we didn't find any such evidence. In fact, we found the opposite."
On the chimp Y, five genes have suffered mutations that rendered them inactive. On the human Y, those same genes continue to function perfectly. "So then," says Hughes, "even though the Y has lost many genes since its origin about 300 million years ago, it's been holding steady in humans for the last 6 million years."
In other words, if the one region of the Y can depend on itself for survival, the other region has found a friend in evolution"
"Page and his team speculate that the loss of genes on the chimpanzee Y may be due to the chimp's mating habits. Both male and female chimps engage with multiple partners when they mate. This gives a strong selective pressure on those genes that produce sperm. Conversely, it puts less pressure on evolution to preserve those genes on the Y whose functions have nothing to do with reproduction. Because humans historically have been largely monogamous, our Y chromosomes have been spared such selective-pressure imbalance.
"Of course," acknowledges Page, "this is a hypothesis that we have no way to scientifically prove or disprove. However, we believe it's currently the best explanation."
I just love science.....
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
If newhope actually read and understood half of what she posted, she would give up her irrational Creationist dogma.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
It's easy to latch onto numbers without bothering to put a lot of thought into what those numbers mean.... like with Tricoplax. The mouse and Y chromosome numbers are more of the same mistake repeated.
wa:do
wa:do
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
And about 75% of the genes causing genetic disorders in fruit flies have analogies in the human genome. So what?
The fact that many genes in mice appear in the same order is just even more evidence in favour of Evolution since they are both MAMMALS.
Benny Vallejo
New Member
David M. The paper says.... an astonishing 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans. Analogous not homologous.
David M
Well-Known Member
Source? Because you are flat out wrong on this.
No the paper doesn't use the term analogue, it says they are homologous. The word analagous/analogue does not appear anywhere in the paper. Feel free to check if you want.
Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome : Article : Nature
This is what the paper says about the comparison of the genomes (emphasis mine).
And the article that Newhope quoted says homologue is what the paper said.
If they were analagous then the situation is even worse for Newhopes claim because analagous genes perform the same function but do not share ancestry. That would mean that the draft mouse genome found that 99% of mouse genes perform the same functions as human genes without necessarily being genetically similar in any way. That would be a very strange result to find in another mammal.
But this is all a bit irrelevant though as the full mouse genome study shows that 20% of mouse genes have no counterpart in the human genome which totally refutes any suggestion that mice are genetically closer to humans that chimps.
Last edited:
First of all I should say I don't purport to provide any positive evidence for what typical religious orthodoxy teaches about creation. The reason there is a dearth of positive evidence for that is because they don't actually understand what Moses was intending to convey in Genesis chapter 1-3. There's a reason why sacred texts weren't indiscriminately disseminated to the masses. They don't know how to read them and come away with ridiculous interpretations and set out to convince others of their own faulty understanding until enough people are firmly established in a tradition that is hard to penetrate with common sense. We now have a plethora of bible translations that are written in such a way that these faulty interpretations are directly imposed upon the masses.
Well did Ezekiel prophesy in chapter 4 that the duration of time that the people of the northern kingdom of Israel were scattered among the Gentiles that their bread (scriptures) would be defiled by dung which cometh out of man. Put another way, the Gentiles (and the Israelite people of the 10 lost tribes scattered among them not knowing who they are) would be given bread that has already been processed through a man with all of the good nutrients stripped out of it leaving a person with barely enough sustenance to survive.
This is why the battle between orthodox religious folks (who truly do mean well, please be patient with them, as they will give you the shirt off their back if you needed it) and sincere scientists who are revealing plain and simple truths about our physical world, needlessly continues.
Truth cannot disagree with truth. They just cannot see any other way to rectify things and lack the courage to stand up against the fable based interpretations their fathers have handed down to them.
I could provide complete proof that the Creation Moses wrote of in Genesis 1-3 is indeed very real but I don't think that is what you were interested in hearing.