Skip to comments.
Genome Evolution | First, a Bang Then, a Shuffle
The Scientist ^
| Ricki Lewis
Posted on 01/31/2003 4:19:03 PM PST by jennyp
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-90 last
If you are arguing that all 1.42 million fixed differences are favorable rather than neutral ...
The mutations include favorable, neutral, and unfavorable ones. What's more, they include polymorphisms, or unfixed mutations. Those polymorphisms include favorable, neutral, and unfavorable mutations.
posted on 02/13/2003 7:26:23 PM PST
The problem is we don't know the rate of mutation in any species as it isn't set . It is a random variable and its speed is set by a variety of factors. A virus, a random mutation, or a cancer can cause all sorts of mutations but when all factors act in a short time (several generations) then mutations occur at a higher rate. You also miss a main point Viruses not only reshuffle what is already there they can add genetic material from their own DNA or carry DNA from other creatures.They can also link genes in different ways.
In fact I would even go so far as to suggest if Christians are hunting for GOD they look toward the lowly virus as the architect of most higher lifeforms today. :)
Again rate of mutation is due to environmental factors that cause mutation when all the factors are working at once mutation occurs quickly but when a person says quickly it could mean hundreds or thousands of years.
As you can see no rate of change can be set. If we know all variables that may be possible. I however doubt we as scientists know all factors that can cause mutation yet. The Viral factor in evolution is brand new and there are even more cutting edge hypothesis that may or may not change what we already know.
What kind of links are you looking for I placed links that are easy to understand rather than technospeak that the average reader would fall asleep over?
posted on 02/14/2003 6:35:58 AM PST
To: Sentis; jennyp; gore3000; Condorman; Nebullis
I agree that we have a lot more to learn about what virii have done to the genome, but that also means it is not reasonable to attribute what many regard as God-like powers to them.
Let's approach this another way. I have gone with ya'lls numbers every step of the way to make it fit. I have not asked any of you to budge a bit even though gore3000 makes a good case that your numbers are suspect.
If we look at the total number amount of difference in the humane genome then maybe we can find the average human mutation rate REGARDLESS if it was caused by radiation, virii, or whatever. It then does not matter how the mutation occured- it takes virus and every other kind of mutation into account. We can then compare that to human-chimp differences and see how likely it is that they split.
Let me show you what I mean: I will not do your homework for you, as some have suggested, but I will do a sample problem for you. I will pretend like I am on your side, and generate some numbers that supports your case.....
A study by Doritz found eight base pair differences out of 397 studied from mtDNA from ethnic groups around the world. Using this study, we can calculate that there is about 2 percent variablity in this hyper-mutational region of mtDNA (8 /397= .02).
Does all of the human genome vary by this amount? IF the mutation rate of this region were applied to all CHROMOSOMAL DNA then a 42 million bpd divided by .02 equals an expected humane genome size of 2.1 billion base pairs. That number of base pairs and higher means that variablity in the human genome can account for it. As one goes lower than that number, the idea that natural factors alone are responsible goes down.
Compared to the actual count of 3 billion bp, you are well within the ballpark of saying the differences can happen as a result of naturalistic mechanisms.
OK, end of Darwins-advocate mode.
The only catch in the above is DOES TOTAL CHROMOSOMAL variability in humans equal or exceed that 2% figure I cited? NO. I don't know what the real difference is though. How much % wise do we all differ from one another in our total CHROMOSOMAL DNA? How do our 42 million (or 150 million using g3ks calculations) bpd's from chimps compare to the number of pbd we have from one another?
If we evolved, shouldn't that calculation give us the average chimp-human mutation rate? Conversely, if we are super-similar to one another compared to our differences with chimps, wouldn't that imply that WE DON'T mutate fast enough to explain the difference?
Do any of you have this information? I invite any of you to plug the real number (not the 2% figure I used, but the real abount of %bp difference in the human genome) into the process I have outlined above and let's see what the numbers show us. Any takers?
If not, does my brainstorm example lead you into any ideas as to how you could model mathematically the reasonableness of the man-chimp connection?
posted on 02/15/2003 12:36:28 PM PST
How much % wise do we all differ from one another in our total CHROMOSOMAL DNA?
Isn't this identical to the point I made way back in post 45?
posted on 02/15/2003 12:46:00 PM PST
(Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist.)
Interesting, polyploidy events could explain how mutations which would normally express themselves in a deletrious manner, because of two chromosomes, would not show up because of the extra copies of the gene. So this could allow for a rare beneficial mutation while still maintaining what you still had. You wouldn't go backwards in this scenario, but rather always upward, to more and more complexity, always maintaining what you had gained before because of the extra copies a polypoloidy event would give. Fascinating!
posted on 02/15/2003 12:53:36 PM PST
Not at all. At 45 I thought you were running away from trying to get meaningful numbers, even though you had commented that the original post was "fact based" when you thought those man-chimp numbers were in your favor. I understood your sudden reluctance to acknowledge the value of mathematical models as the result of your foresight that taken to their reasonable conclusion, the numbers don't support the evolution of man.
A couple of posts later you said I had misread you on that, and I took you at your word.
I hope you are not going to the position that I presumably mistakenly attributed to you back on #44. If the post does represent a "fact based" study, then number estimates on man-chimp genomes are fair game.
I am trying to take these numbers to their logical conclusion, practically begging any and all of you to present your models as I have mine. Rather than attempt to refute my numbers based on fact- which you cannot do since I have used your own numbers at every step of the process, I see a desire to move away from any attempts at measurement. Is that "science"?
I hope I am "misreading" you again. You don't expect us to accept the "science without numbers" mind-set that resists any attempt at quantification?
That can't be your position. It is not a rational one. It is PURE FAITH beyond that of my position that God made man. I am offering mathematical models to support my contentions, whilst I have been offered nothing in return but hypotheticals that are to be accepted on faith.
If my models are flawed, point out the flaws- I have been very reasonable throughout this entire thread about accepting numbers from your side. Don't just side-step the whole issue of quantifying the probability of the evolutionary hypothesis, offer your model in return.
posted on 02/15/2003 1:55:24 PM PST
At 45 I thought you were running away from trying to get meaningful numbers, even though you had commented that the original post was "fact based" when you thought those man-chimp numbers were in your favor.
Which thread are you reading, man?
I also wonder which chimp genome is being compared with which human genome. And how does this compare with a genome comparison between an African bushman and say, an Alaskan Eskimo? Or an Australian Aborigine versus a Brazilian Wari'?
45 posted on 02/07/2003 12:27 PM EST by Condorman
I don't know what the real difference is though. How much % wise do we all differ from one another in our total CHROMOSOMAL DNA? How do our 42 million (or 150 million using g3ks calculations) bpd's from chimps compare to the number of pbd we have from one another?
83 posted on 02/15/2003 3:36 PM EST by Ahban
I understood your sudden reluctance to acknowledge the value of mathematical models as the result of your foresight that taken to their reasonable conclusion, the numbers don't support the evolution of man.
Never said that. I wanted to establish a baseline. If chimps are 95% the same a man, what does that mean? How does that compare to intra-human genome comparisons? How close are humans to, say, goldfish? Without any kind of reference point, 5% is a meaningless figure.
I understood your sudden reluctance to acknowledge the value of mathematical models as the result of your foresight that taken to their reasonable conclusion, the numbers don't support the evolution of man. A couple of posts later you said I had misread you on that, and I took you at your word.
Once again, here is the context of that remark.
The mice that scientists recently inserted jelly-fish glow genes into can now glow in the dark. Should civilization end and these critters escape into the wild I suppose some scientits 500 years from now could speculate that these genes evolved. Others could hypothysize that these genes were the results of intelligent designers manipulating genes.
I don't think the first group of scientists should demand that the second group produce the bodies of those long gone researchers as "proof" of the design hypotheis. The second group should be able to use stats to show how absurd is the idea of evolution in this case, especially within 500 years.
46 posted on 02/07/2003 1:34 PM EST by Ahban
Only if the second group was fully conversant with the initial conditions at the period in time when the glow-in-the-dark mice first appeared in the animal kingdom. Without that info, calculating statistical improbability it just guesswork with a slide rule.
47 posted on 02/07/2003 4:09 PM EST by Condorman
I am trying to take these numbers to their logical conclusion, practically begging any and all of you to present your models as I have mine.
Where have you been? We have! Sexual reproduction, gene duplication, transposition, and viral action have all been presented and identified as mechanisms for genetic modification. You sought to dismiss virii by referring to my remarks as "C-man's mystery virus" until Sentis expounded on the concept, but have since been content to let the matter drop. Nebullis appeared and made note of the fact that mutation rates appear to be consistent with the observed genetic differences between chimps and man given the time frame.
But here's the rub, even if those mechanisms are shown to be inadequate, this IN NO WAY provides support for a designer. Your only argument at the point appears to be "What we know can't account for the changes, it must have been the Designer." What you forget is that unless we have evidence to the contrary, we have to exhaust all the possible natural alternatives before a Designer might be considered.
I made the same point in post 63 and concluded with this question: If a Designer is responsible for the chimp-human divergence, how did he do it, and would we humans be able to distinguish Designer-induced genetic changes from those occuring naturally? You claimed that I'm attempting to sidestep the issue.
I'm sorry, but I think I'm starting to lose interest in this thread. I do appreciate your efforts, but your responses indicate that you don't appear to be comprehending the points I'm trying to make. Maybe I'm not being clear, maybe you don't understand, maybe it's a combination of the two. Whatever the case, I seem to be spending more time regurgitating our conversations than making any progress forward.
posted on 02/16/2003 3:05:20 PM PST
(I get my monkeys for nothing and my chimps for free.)
From this thread
There are many aspects of the universe that still cannot be explained satisfactorily by science; but ignorance only implies ignorance that may someday be conquered. To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.
--Isaac Asimov, 1984
I agree that it is time for this thread to come to an end. It is clear that I am not going to get what I have been asking for. Good luck in the future.
posted on 02/16/2003 7:29:45 PM PST
posted on 12/17/2007 6:14:04 PM PST
(Profile updated Monday, December 10, 2007____________________https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-90 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson