No I never said, nor implied that transposons get fixed and dominant in all the population and even if I did use the “wrong words” I have clarified this multiple times and you still repeat the same comment..
You absolutely implied it - otherwise, what would be the point of hammering on this over and over:
"If transposons (or similar mechanisms) played a mayor role you can have more genetic changes in less time (this would help to explain the 60M differences between chimps and humans)"
"
This mechanism can produce new proteins in just 1 generation so yes under that basis the mechanism is “fast enough “
That is true by definition, directed mutations by definition are more likely to be positive, that is part of the definition of “directed mutations”
First, a quick comment - when I asked for "evidence", I did not actually mean that I wanted you to just write an unsupported claim again.
Definitions are irrelevant if you cannot provide actual evidence that "directed mutations" even occur.
Directed mutations occur, and that they cause “fast” evolutionary changes at least at the “micro evolution scale”
My evidence
Those are Shapiro's assertions, extrapolations and wishful thinking are not evidence.
So from this source we get that:
There are nonrandom mechanisms that have been observed
False.
and that can cause evolution at a much faster rate than would have been possible with random mutations.
Also false. Those are Shapiro's claims, but he provides no actual evidence. He has been at this for some time, eagerly seeking name-recognition and fame. The evidence for this includes his many essays written for social media sites in which he argues - much as creationists do - that he is being marginalized, etc. His claims have been debunked repeatedly. Here, for example:
James Shapiro goes after natural selection again (twice) on HuffPo
James Shapiro, in his attempts to forge a new evolutionary paradigm, is reduced to going after my commenters
Should there be a “Third Way” of evolution? I think not.
The evidence for fast evolution in humans and mammals is already available in the source that you provided, from your sources we get that there is difference of 33M site differences between humans and chimps and that they diverge 5-7M years ago. So using your sources and your numbers, can you show that 5-7M years is enough time to account for the 33M site differences using the mechanism that you are suggesting?
I have done this 2 times for you already. You merely assert 'too fast.'
I am already providing a mechanism that can alter many sites at the same time, so why isn’t this mechanism a good candidate to explain such differences.
Because you are just parroting charlatans that write things that you want to hear.
I told you why your questions are irrelevant,
Because you cannot answer them.
you don’t have to explain the “physical traits” that make use humans, you have to explain the 33M nucleotide differences that we know exists between humans and chimps. Weather if this defferences can explain “the traits” or not, is irrelevant
It is a shame that your amazing scientific paper searching capabilities only seem capable of finding what you think are creation-friendly (e.g., Shapiro) nonsense as opposed to relevant scientific papers.
For you could have easily found this paper:
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium
Nature volume 437, pages69–87 (2005)
"On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ∼90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ∼3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions; this confirms and extends several recent studies. Of course, the number of indel events is far fewer than the number of substitution events (∼5 million compared with ∼35 million, respectively)."
Indels are, of course, one-time (i.e., single-mutation) events, as I'm sure you must know. You've been debunked all along, even when I used your own erroneous numbers, the numbers were not in your favor.
No magic un-evidenced transposons, 'natural genetic engineering', etc., needed. But this will not discourage you from reiterating your long-ago debunked claims for... ever.
Well I already provided evidence for directed mutations, what else are you expecting, what does it take to convince you that such mutations do occure?
Actual evidence. Shapiro's paper that you linked was not a research paper, for one thing. For another, none of the papers HE cited provided the evidence you pretend he presented. His reference, for example, to Ty retrotransposons is outdated (1993, though since he wrote what you quoted in 1999, I guess we can forgive him) and newer papers reveal a nucleosomal structural site that
favors its integration (as opposed to 'direction'):
"Two integration hotspots per nucleosomal DNA separated by about 70 bp and located near the H2A/H2B interface were identified (
Figure 10B). The unexpected asymmetry in the Ty1 insertion sites relative to the nucleosome dyad axis suggests that a dynamic process of nucleosome remodeling exposes a specific H2A/H2B surface permissive to Ty1 integration. "
... but I'm guessing Shapiro has moved on from those 20 year old claims.
Ok “too fast” is a subjective term, but we can agree on the fact that 33/2 M nucleotide differences evolved in the human line in 5M years….. weather if you arbitrary what to call this “fast” or not is irrelevant, the point is that you have to show that your model of “almost only random mutations” can account for such differences.
Done - see above.
