Posted on 09/22/2012 10:25:11 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Geneticists have previously estimated mutation rates by comparing the human genome with the sequences of other primates. On the basis of species-divergence dates gleaned -- ironically -- from fossil evidence, they concluded that in human DNA, each letter mutates once every billion years. "It's a suspiciously round number," says Linda Vigilant, a molecular anthropologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. The suspicion turned out to be justified.
In the past few years, geneticists have been able to watch the molecular clock in action, by sequencing whole genomes from dozens of families5 and comparing mutations in parents and children. These studies show that the clock ticks at perhaps half the rate of previous estimates, says Scally.
In a review published on 11 September1,Scally and his colleague Richard Durbin used the slower rates to reevaluate the timing of key splits in human evolution. "If the mutation rate is halved, then all the dates you estimate double," says Scally. "That seems like quite a radical change." Yet the latest molecular dates mesh much better with key archaeological dates.
Take the 400,000-600,000-year-old Sima de Los Huesos site in Atapuerca, Spain, which yielded bones attributed to Homo heidelbergensis, the direct ancestors of Neanderthals. Genetic studies have suggested that earlier ancestors of Neanderthals split from the branch leading to modern humans much more recently, just 270,000-435,000 years ago. A slowed molecular clock pushes this back to a more comfortable 600,000 years ago (see 'Better agreement over the human story').
(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...
2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”;
3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection;
4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good).
Please don't swamp me with a ton of pseudoscience babble. There is enough actual science available on the internet that there is really no excuse for seeking out and repeating the pseudoscience.
If you have difficulty discerning the pseudoscience from the science, keep in mind that articles on real science contain references based in actual research and indexed in a reliable database such as PubMed, that just about every statement in a genuine science article is supported by at least one and sometimes multiple references, and that there is a great deal of consistency from research report to research report.
The Bible was given to us by God and tells us that He created the Universe, created man, the fall of man, and sending His Son to die for man.
And nonsensical.
The sum may be greater than its parts, but without its parts, in all of their characteristics, it doesn't exist.
Indeed. The notion that an entire species can arise from a single breeding pair *is* magical and nonsensical, and completely contrary to actual observations.
Why don't you go and read up on population drift and mechanisms of evolution and get back to me when you have a firm grasp of what is being discussed?
There is the Bible which was written by men, and then there is the Universe which was created by God. I know which one I’ll believe when there can be no compromise.
The bible can not be considered evidence in logic any more than the book of Mormon or the Koran. You can say you believe it but that does not make it true. Science deals with objective measurable facts of existence. The base of knowledge of reason is existence. The base of knowledge of faith is belief without reason. The substance of that which is hoped for is a wish. Wishes are not absolutes. Feelings are not absolutes. Numbers of believers are not a substitute for evidence any more than the number of believers of a scientific theory if there is no evidence to support it. Existence is an absolute, facts are absolutes. Feelings are not. Arbitrary claims are not means of cognition.
The Bible was given to us by God and tells us that He created the Universe, created man, the fall of man, and sending His Son to die for man.
2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”;
3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection;
4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good).
I don't think that person knows about polyploidy or any of the other mutations that involve duplication of genetic code.
Ha! Evolution is not real science. Real science does not claim to be able to repeat an experiment in history - esp millions and billions of years - it’s only a matter of time before people wake up to this fraud you choose to defend. Can’t wait to see what happens when evolution is removed from the governmental give-aways.
I think that person doesn't understand a lot about genetics.
Obviously you don’t know anything about the Bible so please do us all a favor and quit your senile comparisons with other religions. Try reading just about any famous atheists converted to christianity - if you dare - it will truly be a real eye opener for you. Ever heard of prophecy bub?
Too bad God hasn’t given us a revised edition so you can use it as a science book and not look ignorant.
This breakthrough further substantiates the Biblical Creation story. Random-chance-anti-god-naturalist-atheists have long claimed (laughably if you know all the facts) that there is no “need” for a Creator God and that
random chance mutations over long periods of time can explain new species (again not true. Read about the Cambrian explosion about 535 million years ago. Almost every phyla in existence today appeared in the fossil record in a geological “instant” leaving paleontologists and theoreticians at a complete loss for an expatiation). The former theories were based on the belief that mutations were frequent (1 mutation per nucleotide base letter per billion years) and if you compound those mutations for 3ish billion (in humans) base pairs over enough years, you get your new species. WELL, the old theory couldn’t explain rapid speciation events, and NOW this new finding shows that DNA is TWICE as resistant to change as we previously believed. That renders it just about a complete impossibility that any new species can be explained through mutation and gradualism. Praise GOD!
Populations evolve through the accumulation of favoured traits. What’s so nonsensical about that? Mutation increases the variety of traits and natural selection favours some of them (meaning more reproduction of the traits) and eliminates others (which may or may not reappear). What’s nonsensical about this? In comparison with Adam and Eve conversing with a snake, and the magical appearance of people not descended from Adam or Eve (and who aren’t supposed to exist, because if they did, they didn’t descend from Adam or Eve) whom Cain is afraid of, in his exile, as ExDemMom pointed out?
Yada, yada. Whatever. You are unable to dispute the arguments, so you post mumbo-jumbo conjecture and then when I point this out, you choose to take your bat and ball and go home.
LOL.
Why don’t you think about wasting a little lesser of everyone’s time, and instead address what ExDemMom raised? That would be the opposite of the stupid comment you just posted.
'professing themselves to be wise, they became fools'(Ro.1:22)
Bump for your apt comments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.