Putting God's Design In Perspective

[tas8831]

It is part of a long discussion. tas8831 and I agreed that you have a maximum of 50,000 benefitial mutations to explain the difference between chimps and humans

I grow tired of the dishonesty of "Christian" creationists - I NEVER "agreed" to any such thing.

YOU declared this number to be accurate for reasons that were apparently made up, then demanded I explain human evolution using that number.

YOU simply 'do not believe' it, yet offer no explanation as to why (much less any evidence).

My point is that you need much more than 50,000 mutations to explain the differences between chimps and humans.

That is not a 'point' - that is your mere slogan, a claim, that you repeat with ZERO support.

His position is that 50,000 is enough to explain all the differences.

More than enough. You have not even tried to counter that.

Then I presented the article that explains that 3 million crucial differences have been infered when comparing the chimp and human genome.

At this point, it is safe to say that you are simply lying.

The article you cited indicated NO SUCH THING - for crying out loud, I QUOTED it for you more than once! The article YOU presented as supporting your position DID NOT DO SO!

And not only that - even if the article you cite actually indicated what you claim, you will have conceded that your original (not original to you - but to ReMine and other YEC nuts) claim is BOGUS!

And the best part is that you cannot even understand that.

I say that even if I had agreed that 50,000 is needed, that there are MORE is no problem for me - my position is and has only ever been that creationists claims about there being "too few fixed beneficial mutations allowed" by a mathematical model are wrong. And if there are 3 million, then the model was WAY wrong, and YEC arguments premised on it are demolished.

Given that 3 million is more than 50,000 I presented good reasons to assume that 50,000 is not enough to explain the differences between chimps and humans.

You can look at his reply and judge if he was sucsesucce supporting that 50,000 is enough.

Better to consider whether or not creationists are born dishonest, or they become so upon deciding to be a creationist crusader on the internet.


Pity that you were 100% incapable of providing even a single example of how many fixed beneficial mutations would have been 'required' for any human feature.

Concession accepted.

 

[tas8831]

How big a portion?

Please do not rely on those earlier ENCODE papers - I know the professional creationists loved them, but they ignored subsequent papers for obvious reasons (ENCODE totally recanted..).

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

Answer this honestly - does all of your knowledge of genetics come from creationist websites?

It looks like you are completely unaware of the following:

1. The timing of gene expression can produce phenotypic modifications during development

2. the extent of expression can alter phenotype

3. 1 and 2 above do not require ANY change to the coding gene involved at all.

Here is an example:

A single p450 allele associated with insecticide resistance in Drosophila.

"Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene."

So, what happened here is that a transposon inserted itself in promoter/enhancer region of a gene and caused it to be over-expressed. This conferred an adaptive benefit, now fixed in these populations of Drosophila.

Single mutation, altered phenotype, no mutation in the gene itself.

A single paper destroys 3 of your claims/implications.

leroy?

Did you bail again?

 

[tas8831]

Leroy?

My original point was that sometimes you need to change both the gene and the regulator in other to change a trait.

Point?

A mere unsupported assertion is not a 'point.'

You have no clue - you NEVER present anything remotely like support for your assertions. Your arguments are premised ENTIRELY on your desire for evolution to be wrong, so you can rest easy in your mere belief that Genesis I and II are totally true.

No, you did not. The article you referred to indicated that this 3 million "may" contain relevant mutations:

"However, as many as 3 million of the differences may lie in crucial protein-coding genes or other functional areas of the genome."

But no, you go ahead and keep embellishing this one result of your keyword search technique.

Still waiting for you to explain how many fixed beneficial mutations are required for any trait you choose. But that would require you to understand how genes and development work, so...

Anyway, even if all 3 million were totally beneficial, that is different from 50,000 being "too few" or whichever number you are dreaming up today.

An analogy - a human needs, say, 500 calories a day to survive. If that human takes in 1000 calories, they will survive and then some.
Get it?

But thanks for undercutting the whole "Haldane's dilemma' thing, which only allows for a couple thousand.
I am sure creationists like ReMine will welcome the news that you have destroyed their careers.


You're a funny guy - creationist tactic #72 - when you are getting spanked, try to set yourself up as a brave martyr...


You mean you understand that I accept the evidence that most mutations are neutral.

So cute how your whole argument has changed - but not as cute as how you keep misrepresenting that article.


Golly, I thought I explained it pretty well - maybe if I paste in in bold?

1. There really are no 'brand new' traits that humans possess that chimps do not, indicating that our common ancestor also that the same basic traits

2. Therefore, we only need to "tweak" existing traits, and tweaking an existing trait does NOT require some large number of beneficial mutations

3. Support for this - point mutation in the FGFR-3 gene causing achondroplasia - altered limb-to-trunk proportion, altered facial characteristics, reduced joints, etc. All from one mutation. Reminder - I am NOT presenting this as a beneficial mutation, just the reality that MULTIPLE phenotypic traits can be altered, in this case, by a single mutation.


The fact that you cannot tell us all how many fixed beneficial mutations are required for ANY of the unnamed traits that had to have been affected tells me that you have nothing but rhetoric and misrepresentation.


Was I?

Tell you what, Skipper - here is a link to the Human Genome browser:

UCSC Genome Browser Home


Take your impressive genetics knowledge and do what no other creationist has even tried to do -

FIND A BENEFICIAL MUTATION in there. For any trait you believe had to have been altered by such. Go ahead. Then explain to me how many such mutations were required for that trait to be what it is in humans and how it differed from a common ancestor.
I can wait. I've been waiting for ReMine to do it for 25 years.


Many, if not most mutations do this - you would know this if you were not so ignorant of the subject matter. Look up Pleiotropy.

If you understood basic genetics, you would realize that you don't have a point.
Why would you think that I think that 'traits' like brain size AND bipedality would be affected by a single mutation?

In the achondroplasia example, the obvious implication was that a single mutation can affect LIMB development (among other things) - LIMBS are made up of bones, muscle, nerves, skin, etc. I know of many creationists that have insisted that each of those (bones, skin, etc.) would all REQUIRE their own specific beneficial mutations.
This is stupid. Do you admit that altering a limb would NOT require a suite of specific mutations governing every aspect of the a limb?



Please do - but do admit that you understand that it is not universal, seeing as how I have shown this is not the case.

Let me guess - you will be paraphrasing or linking to Behe's big blunders?


Oh - a reminder that in a post you ran away from, I spanked you on yet another issue:

Putting God's Design In Perspective


...

Answer this honestly - does all of your knowledge of genetics come from creationist websites?

It looks like you are completely unaware of the following:

1. The timing of gene expression can produce phenotypic modifications during development

2. the extent of expression can alter phenotype

3. 1 and 2 above do not require ANY change to the coding gene involved at all.

Here is an example:

A single p450 allele associated with insecticide resistance in Drosophila.

"Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene."

So, what happened here is that a transposon inserted itself in promoter/enhancer region of a gene and caused it to be over-expressed. This conferred an adaptive benefit, now fixed in these populations of Drosophila.

Single mutation, altered phenotype, no mutation in the gene itself.

A single paper destroys 3 of your claims/implications.

 

[shunyadragon]

leroy?

Did you bail again?

Did you mean 'make bail again?'.'

 

[tas8831]

It is part of a long discussion. tas8831 and I agreed that you have a maximum of 50,000 benefitial mutations to explain the difference between chimps and humans

My point is that you need much more than 50,000 mutations to explain the differences between chimps and humans.

His position is that 50,000 is enough to explain all the differences.

Then I presented the article that explains that 3 million crucial differences have been infered when comparing the chimp and human genome. Given that 3 million is more than 50,000 I presented good reasons to assume that 50,000 is not enough to explain the differences between chimps and humans.


You can look at his reply and judge if he was sucsesucce supporting that 50,000 is enough.

Still curious as to why you would so absurdly misrepresent me.

 

[tas8831]

A big problem here:

NO, that is NOT what your original point was:

"You don’t have to speculate much, we know that at least a big portion of non-codign DNA has a function…. For example they control gene expression …………this represents more problems for Darwinist, since in order to have an advantage you have to shuffle a gene + you have to shuffle the non coding DNA that controls the expression of that gene, if you don’t have both you don’t have an advantage."



Absolutely incredible.

Bump for leroy, should he dare to return...

 

[tas8831]

And he never did...

 

[tas8831]

I grow tired of the dishonesty of "Christian" creationists - I NEVER "agreed" to any such thing.

YOU declared this number to be accurate for reasons that were apparently made up, then demanded I explain human evolution using that number.

YOU simply 'do not believe' it, yet offer no explanation as to why (much less any evidence).


That is not a 'point' - that is your mere slogan, a claim, that you repeat with ZERO support.

More than enough. You have not even tried to counter that.


At this point, it is safe to say that you are simply lying.

The article you cited indicated NO SUCH THING - for crying out loud, I QUOTED it for you more than once! The article YOU presented as supporting your position DID NOT DO SO!

And not only that - even if the article you cite actually indicated what you claim, you will have conceded that your original (not original to you - but to ReMine and other YEC nuts) claim is BOGUS!

And the best part is that you cannot even understand that.

I say that even if I had agreed that 50,000 is needed, that there are MORE is no problem for me - my position is and has only ever been that creationists claims about there being "too few fixed beneficial mutations allowed" by a mathematical model are wrong. And if there are 3 million, then the model was WAY wrong, and YEC arguments premised on it are demolished.





Better to consider whether or not creationists are born dishonest, or they become so upon deciding to be a creationist crusader on the internet.


Pity that you were 100% incapable of providing even a single example of how many fixed beneficial mutations would have been 'required' for any human feature.

Concession accepted.

Resurrecting this thread for Leroy, who claimed to have answered everything 19 times already...

Well, except for the many things he never answered once.

 

[tas8831]

Already refuted this stuff, but just wanted to reiterate some of the basic errors creationists make when they 'discuss' things that they have business discussing.

Even assuming an unrealistically convenient scenario (as the one described before) you can get a maximum of 50,000 mutations, ….. 50,000 is nowhere near enough to explain the difference between chimps and humans....
The actual number is 50,000…. how do we know it is too few?...simple, when looking at samples of orthologs genes between humans and chimps we can note that we share 98% of similarity.

1. The phrase should have been "orthologous genes", not "orthologs genes."
2. The 98% similarity figure, whatever it happens to be (98, 92, 99, etc.), that number does NOT refer to genes, it refers to DNA sequence identity.
We could have, for example, 100 of the same genes (100% orthologs), yet only 92% sequence identity.

The creationist's ignorance of the field of genetics allows them to make these sorts of conflated and counterfactual assertions, without even knowing it.

Assuming that this samples represent all the genome (again another generous assumption because it ignores the fact that some genes are exclusive to humans and some are exclusive to chimps) + the fact that genomes are 3B base pairs long, we can conclude that the 2% difference between chimps and humans represents 60,000,000 base pairs. …….therefore 50,000 mutations do not even explain a small portion of the differences between chimps and humans

Apples, oranges, and fish.

1. it seems that the creationists conflates DNA sequences and genes, or thinks the entire genome is genes, or something.
2. it seems the creationist believes that ALL differences occur only in genes
3. it seems the creationist does not know that only about 2% of the genome is genes, with maybe another 10-20% 'essential' conserved sequence (like telomeres, regulatory sequence, etc.).
4. it seems the creationist believes that ALL of the % difference between humans and chimps MUST account for the phenotpyic differences
5. it seems the creationist does not know about the ~1.6% DNA sequence difference between any 2 random humans - or about 48 million bases. According to the creationists logic, any 2 random people SHOULD look almost nothing alike - and I do not just mean different color hair and height/weight/nose shape/etc., I mean, according to creationist logic, any 2 humans should look almost as different as humans and chimps do!

So much funk in that one little post, so much misunderstanding/ignorance/conflation/unwarranted extrapolation/etc.

 

[leroy]

Already refuted this stuff, but just wanted to reiterate some of the basic errors creationists make when they 'discuss' things that they have business discussing.
1. The phrase should have been "orthologous genes", not "orthologs genes."
2. The 98% similarity figure, whatever it happens to be (98, 92, 99, etc.), that number does NOT refer to genes, it refers to DNA sequence identity.
We could have, for example, 100 of the same genes (100% orthologs), yet only 92% sequence identity.

The creationist's ignorance of the field of genetics allows them to make these sorts of conflated and counterfactual assertions, without even knowing it.

Apples, oranges, and fish.

1. it seems that the creationists conflates DNA sequences and genes, or thinks the entire genome is genes, or something.
2. it seems the creationist believes that ALL differences occur only in genes
3. it seems the creationist does not know that only about 2% of the genome is genes, with maybe another 10-20% 'essential' conserved sequence (like telomeres, regulatory sequence, etc.).
4. it seems the creationist believes that ALL of the % difference between humans and chimps MUST account for the phenotpyic differences
5. it seems the creationist does not know about the ~1.6% DNA sequence difference between any 2 random humans - or about 48 million bases. According to the creationists logic, any 2 random people SHOULD look almost nothing alike - and I do not just mean different color hair and height/weight/nose shape/etc., I mean, according to creationist logic, any 2 humans should look almost as different as humans and chimps do!

So much funk in that one little post, so much misunderstanding/ignorance/conflation/unwarranted extrapolation/etc.

These are very interesting points, but what makes you think that I didn’t know all that already? There is certainly nothing in the comments that you quoted that indicates that I fail to understand those basic points

 

[tas8831]

Since neutral mutations are unlikely to become fixed, most of the differences between chimps and humans are beneficial (ofourse I am assuming that you are a “selectionists” if you where a “neutralist”, then this argument would not apply)


ok, so refute this assertion, or are you going to find excuses for not supporting it?

These are very interesting points, but what makes you think that I didn’t know all that already?

Um - the things you wrote?

There is certainly nothing in the comments that you quoted that indicates that I fail to understand those basic points

Right, OK....

 

[tas8831]

These are very interesting points, but what makes you think that I didn’t know all that already? There is certainly nothing in the comments that you quoted that indicates that I fail to understand those basic points

Whatever - your bland dismissal is a mere cop-out, as I was expecting.

Please address these points. if you can:



1. it seems that the creationists conflates DNA sequences and genes, or thinks the entire genome is genes, or something.
2. it seems the creationist believes that ALL differences occur only in genes
3. it seems the creationist does not know that only about 2% of the genome is genes, with maybe another 10-20% 'essential' conserved sequence (like telomeres, regulatory sequence, etc.).
4. it seems the creationist believes that ALL of the % difference between humans and chimps MUST account for the phenotpyic differences
5. it seems the creationist does not know about the ~1.6% DNA sequence difference between any 2 random humans - or about 48 million bases. According to the creationists logic, any 2 random people SHOULD look almost nothing alike - and I do not just mean different color hair and height/weight/nose shape/etc., I mean, according to creationist logic, any 2 humans should look almost as different as humans and chimps do!

 

[leroy]

Whatever - your bland dismissal is a mere cop-out, as I was expecting.

Please address these points. if you can:
Again I am not making any of those claims... Sometimes creationists over simplify the argument to make it easier to explain, but the argument is equally valid even if we consider all the stuff that you said....

The good news is that the argument is falsifiable, so feel free to do so


1. it seems that the creationists conflates DNA sequences and genes, or thinks the entire genome is genes, or something.
2. it seems the creationist believes that ALL differences occur only in genes
3. it seems the creationist does not know that only about 2% of the genome is genes, with maybe another 10-20% 'essential' conserved sequence (like telomeres, regulatory sequence, etc.).
4. it seems the creationist believes that ALL of the % difference between humans and chimps MUST account for the phenotpyic differences
5. it seems the creationist does not know about the ~1.6% DNA sequence difference between any 2 random humans - or about 48 million bases. According to the creationists logic, any 2 random people SHOULD look almost nothing alike - and I do not just mean different color hair and height/weight/nose shape/etc., I mean, according to creationist logic, any 2 humans should look almost as different as humans and chimps do!

 

[leroy]

Whatever - your bland dismissal is a mere cop-out, as I was expecting.

Please address these points. if you can:



1. it seems that the creationists conflates DNA sequences and genes, or thinks the entire genome is genes, or something.
2. it seems the creationist believes that ALL differences occur only in genes
3. it seems the creationist does not know that only about 2% of the genome is genes, with maybe another 10-20% 'essential' conserved sequence (like telomeres, regulatory sequence, etc.).
4. it seems the creationist believes that ALL of the % difference between humans and chimps MUST account for the phenotpyic differences
5. it seems the creationist does not know about the ~1.6% DNA sequence difference between any 2 random humans - or about 48 million bases. According to the creationists logic, any 2 random people SHOULD look almost nothing alike - and I do not just mean different color hair and height/weight/nose shape/etc., I mean, according to creationist logic, any 2 humans should look almost as different as humans and chimps do!

I can agree with your points, those creationists are wrong

What you don’t seem to understand is that you are the one who is affirming evolution, you are trhe one who is supposed to explain how are things are supposed to work. You are the one who is suppose to answer to this questions

1 how many mutations do you need to “evolve” a human and a chimp form a common ancestor

2 Is there enough time for such mutations to occur

The only point that I made is that assuming* that you need 30,000,000+ beneficial mutations there wouldn’t be enough time to evolve a human

If you reject this assumption please let me know which are the correct numbers,

The problem is that you will not accept nor reject the assumption, you will simply keap your position vague and ambiguous and adopt a position of “eternal skepticism”

 

[blü 2]

1 how many mutations do you need to “evolve” a human and a chimp form a common ancestor

To work out an accurate figure you'd need to settle on a single model of the human genome and a single model of the chimp genome. I don't see any sensible way of doing that, but someone else might.

According to this study, if you compare the genome of a child to the genomes of its parents, the rate of transcription error is "only one new mutation in every 100 million letters of DNA"; and the children studied had on average 60 transcription errors, about half what was expected. Nearly all of those will be harmless.

2 Is there enough time for such mutations to occur

Self-evidently. The mechanisms of mutation are well studied (as well as the tendencies of populations to be genetically stable when in stable circumstances).

The only point that I made is that assuming* that you need 30,000,000+ beneficial mutations there wouldn’t be enough time to evolve a human.

Here's a comparison of human and chimp genomes. From memory over the years, the similarity between the two has been variously given as from 96% to 99%, suggesting that the criteria for a 'variation' may be variously defined.

 

[Polymath257]

Here's a comparison of human and chimp genomes. From memory over the years, the difference between the two has been variously given from 96% to 99%, suggesting that the criteria for a 'variation' may be variously defined.

And most of those are not 'beneficial', bit instead are neutral mutations.

The number of actual mutations to get from chimp to human is certainly MUCH smaller than that.

 

[shunyadragon]

I can agree with your points, those creationists are wrong

What you don’t seem to understand is that you are the one who is affirming evolution, you are trhe one who is supposed to explain how are things are supposed to work. You are the one who is suppose to answer to this questions.

Wrong person to ask. Get your degree in genetics and/or paleontology, and get your questions answered.

1 how many mutations do you need to “evolve” a human and a chimp form a common ancestor

2 Is there enough time for such mutations to occur

Yes, the mutations and diversification of primates takes place over millions of years. The progressive fossil and genetic evidence demonstrates the human relationship with all primates, There is no such thing as a number mutations required for the evolution and diversification of primates.

The only point that I made is that assuming* that you need 30,000,000+ beneficial mutations there wouldn’t be enough time to evolve a human

30,000,000 is not a meaningful coherent number of anything related to evolution of primates over millions of years.

Assume as you may, but it is meaningless unless you have a background in genetics and paleontology.

You can assert that from a religious agenda perspective, but evolution has millions of years for the diversification of primates and human evolution..

If you reject this assumption please let me know which are the correct numbers,

The problem is that you will not accept nor reject the assumption, you will simply keep your position vague and ambiguous and adopt a position of “eternal skepticism”

Your assumption is based on a religious agenda and the rejection of science. If you want understand the genetics and fossil evidence of evolution get a degree in paleontology or genetics, and come back with your questions, and be specific and meaningful.

What academic background do you have that qualifies you to even ask these questions?

Still waiting . . .

 

[leroy]

Wrong person to ask. Get your degree in genetics and/or paleontology, and get your questions answered.



Yes, the mutations and diversification of primates takes place over millions of years. The progressive fossil and genetic evidence demonstrates the human relationship with all primates, There is no such thing as a number mutations required for the evolution and diversification of primates.



30,000,000 is not a meaningful coherent number of anything related to evolution of primates over millions of years.

Assume as you may, but it is meaningless unless you have a background in genetics and paleontology.

You can assert that from a religious agenda perspective, but evolution has millions of years for the diversification of primates and human evolution..



Your assumption is based on a religious agenda and the rejection of science. If you want understand the genetics and fossil evidence of evolution get a degree in paleontology or genetics, and come back with your questions, and be specific and meaningful.

What academic background do you have that qualifies you to even ask these questions?

Still waiting . . .

How surprising an arrogant evolutionist avoiding direct answers to simple questions...

 

[shunyadragon]

How surprising an arrogant evolutionist avoiding direct answers to simple questions...

How surprising an arrogant anti-science creationist avoiding direct answers to simple questions.

You did not ask any questions that are meaningful to the subject, except your religious agenda.

WHere does this 30,000,000 number of mutations come from? Peer reviewed scientific references please.

What academic background do you have that qualifies you to even ask these questions?

Still waiting . . .

 

[leroy]

How surprising an arrogant anti-science creationist avoiding direct answers to simple questions.

You did not ask any questions that are meaningful to the subject, except your religious agenda.

WHere does this 30,000,000 number of mutations come from? Peer reviewed scientific references please.

What academic background do you have that qualifies you to even ask these questions?

Still waiting . . .

Ohhh do I need an academic background to ask questions in an apen forum for lay people?

....
The human genome is 3,000,000,000 BP long, if we share 99% of our genome with the chimp-human ancestor.that lived 5M years ago.... that would mean that there is a difference of 30,000,000bp so this is where the 30,000,000 number comes from

See I answer questions directly, why don't you do the same?



So please given that you have so many academic credentials please ether

1 show that the process of random mutations and NS can account for this 30,000,000 difference..... (if the 30,000,000 number is wrong please use the correct value, when you present your proof )

2 join your peers and admit that such thing has never been proven

3 avoid a direct answer and keep your position vague and ambiguous