Administrator2
New Member
[Administrator: this thread is spinning off of the Haldane's Dilemma thread and in our opinion deserves its own thread.]
JOHN PAUL
1. Evolutionists have claimed that humans have evolved from some primitive ancestor, which is also the ancestor of chimps. As a matter of fact they claim that all of life's diversity evolved from some genetically unknowable population(s) of single-celled organisms. By the very nature of these claims most cannot be substantiated.
2. I, as well as others have pressed evolutionists for validation of their claims.
3 and 4. The purpose of my response was to show evolutionists ask things of their opponents that they themselves are unwilling or unable to do. Don’t want the lurkers to get the feeling this alleged scenario is unique to the Creationist camp.
As evident by a previous statement Also I am trying to get clarification on what you (evolutionists) want Walter to substantiate, as it is unclear to me- what you want and what ancestor Walter is saying 1667 beneficial (plus x neutral) is too few. I am also looking for clarification. (personally I would be willing to wager no amount of mutations would do the trick) But even without it we may still be able to go with Helen’s suggestion. Might as well start somewhere.
There is no misrepresentation, you just misunderstood the point.
John Paul:
I think you misrepresented what was being said. Sure chimps can walk upright, so can bears, dogs and other animals. Of course these animals can NOT do so habitually. Therein lies the difference.
The following can be read in its entirety at: http://www.uia.ac.be/crc/foot_morphology.html
For example the following is a pro-evolutionary look at the issue (locomotion):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/l_071_02.html
Although they make it seem like an easy enough process (because they have no doubt it happened), do we even know if it is genetically plausible? IOW, are the adaptive differences even achievable by mutations culled by natural selection? Chimps and humans upright posture and bipedal locomotion are only similar in the fact they are both upright and both bipedal. Seeing we are discussing what is the alleged common ancestor of the two (regarding its posture & locomotion), either the chimps lost the ability or the ancestor didn’t have it, and humans & the chimps gained it, albeit to differing extents.
A little Internet research shows us that, using the knowledge we do have, Walter’s assumptions are good. Our means of locomotion, posture and language (including speech) are unique to us. The only reason to assume that those adaptations can evolve is to infer that they did.
John Paul:
No, that is your inference (btw I didn’t mention God). Sometimes design is mind correlative. For example if you are walking across a meadow and come upon 10000 trees in 100 x 100 evenly spaced rows, would you think nature dispersed seeds in that neat arrangement or would you think it was planted that way intentionally? It is not necessary to know the mind of the designer or the designer in order to detect design.
Do I think the designer was limited? Yes, in the sense that in the physical plane designs are limited by physical law. As far as we know there is only one DNA coding sequence that gives us humans. The ends justify the means so God could have used any method to get the human OS up, running and with the proper hardware.
Do I know why the designer used similar DNA sequences for different organisms? Not exactly but by using science we can hazard an educated guess (IOW we can infer). (see the AiG article I linked to above and my earlier post)
As far as the AiG article it was on topic pertaining to homology and DNA similarity being evidence for a Common Creator. Also it is very relevant to what I had posted. Did you even read it? Has the complete chimp genome been sequenced? No. Have entire genome sequences of chimps and humans been compared? No. In fact much less than 1% of each organisms’ genome has been compared (70 genes).
When AiG proclaims “The DNA similarity data don’t quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!” They are of course referring to the evolutionary claim of similar DNA equals close evolutionary relationships via common descent. Why you think that proclamation undermines the Common Creator scenario is beyond me. To me it shows ingenuity- that is making many different things out of common parts. It also calls into to question the power of DNA. http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/DNA-Myth-CommonerFeb02.htm
It could be that we find out that changes in DNA won’t give us the great transformations required by the ToE.
Homology, including DNA similarity, has been used as evidence for a Common Creator for years. As far as inferring design is concerned once the double helix was discovered any doubts of the validity of design should have been removed. Knowledge is the ally of Creationists and IDists.
On to some numbers:
To further Helen’s point until we have finished the Human Genome Project and the Chimp Genome Project (some 70 genes (well less than 1%) have been compared with less than 1% difference found- 99.01% similar)
[ http://www.uchicago.edu/aff/mwc-amacad/biocomplexity/conference_papers/goodman.pdf *],
we won’t have the proper numbers to work with.
If we use 1% that would be a difference of 32 million base pairs (assuming both genomes are of 3.2 Gbp (Giga (= billion) base pairs)). However until we learn the loci of the differences and what those positions do to an organism all we have are numbers. IOW, in order to get the full effect we may have to wait until Human (chimp) Proteome Project (identifying all proteins) and then the Human (chimp) Physiome Project (how the proteins interact) are complete, or at least underway. But sometimes you work with what you have.
As you will read in the above article “However, there are also differences in the structure of the proteins encoded by genes, which undoubtedly account for some of the observed differences in phenotypes.” David Plaisted offers some insight as to the problems with changing the structure of a protein:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/mutation.html and http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/blocked.html
The basics of which is just how much change can a protein’s structure take and still be a functional part of the chain or function properly in its particular job? How many malfunctioning proteins can an organism handle?
[*from the article: “In order to analyze which amino acid replacements have occurred during the evolution of humans and apes, the evolutionary relationships among the species being studied must be inferred.” Which makes me wonder what happens when a Common Creator is inferred?]
However the article on the chimp genome project estimates chimps & humans differ in 445,000 coding positions. 445,000/ 2 = 222,500, which amounts to just under 1 (.89) becoming fixed (per generation) in a population with a generation of 20 years. (Plus a number of non-coding mutations. this is considering a split of 5 million years ago).
The article then goes on to say ” Of these differences, the key ones at the nonsynonymous (nucleotide substitutions that change amino acids) sites are predicted to be found on between 2850 and 4000 genes.” So, still assuming a 50/50 split that would be between 1425 & 2000. If it takes much more than (an average of) 1 difference per gene to be one of the key ones, that would mean 1667 would be too few.
Are the assumptions used above good or not? Let the discussion begin.
Here is another article by David Plaisted that is relevant to this part of the discussion although he discusses from the ape-human split which was allegedly before the chimp-human split:
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/plaisted/
[ July 25, 2002, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]
JOHN PAUL
John Paul:1. Walter ReMine has claimed that human evolution can’t be explained from a primitive ancestor accruing 1667 beneficial mutations (and for the record, 25,000 neutral expressed mutations).
2. I, as well as others have pressed Mr. ReMine for validation of this claim.
3. John Paul responded to my post, but instead of answering the questions I brought up, he tried to change the subject and asked me to provide support for claims I never made!
4. I continued to press John Paul for some answers, and he repeatedly passed.
1. Evolutionists have claimed that humans have evolved from some primitive ancestor, which is also the ancestor of chimps. As a matter of fact they claim that all of life's diversity evolved from some genetically unknowable population(s) of single-celled organisms. By the very nature of these claims most cannot be substantiated.
2. I, as well as others have pressed evolutionists for validation of their claims.
3 and 4. The purpose of my response was to show evolutionists ask things of their opponents that they themselves are unwilling or unable to do. Don’t want the lurkers to get the feeling this alleged scenario is unique to the Creationist camp.
As evident by a previous statement Also I am trying to get clarification on what you (evolutionists) want Walter to substantiate, as it is unclear to me- what you want and what ancestor Walter is saying 1667 beneficial (plus x neutral) is too few. I am also looking for clarification. (personally I would be willing to wager no amount of mutations would do the trick) But even without it we may still be able to go with Helen’s suggestion. Might as well start somewhere.
Robert:: John Paul:
You misrepresent what Walter stated. From your first post in this thread:
”Those must explain the origin of upright posture, speech, language, the appreciation of music, and all the other human adaptations over that period.” – Walter ReMine, January 13, 2002.
Just because our alleged ancestors are alleged to have walked upright does NOT explain its origin.
There is no misrepresentation, you just misunderstood the point.
John Paul:
I think you misrepresented what was being said. Sure chimps can walk upright, so can bears, dogs and other animals. Of course these animals can NOT do so habitually. Therein lies the difference.
The following can be read in its entirety at: http://www.uia.ac.be/crc/foot_morphology.html
All you have to do is go to http://www.google.com/ plug in bipedal locomotion or evolution of language. The language links I gave earlier (in a post above) are good examples of what we know about its evolution and support Walter’s premise. And to put it another way, no one has brought forth any evidence that would show his assumption to be in error.Background of the study
The development of habitual bipedal locomotion is a key factor in the hominisation process. Bipedalism, together with quadrupedalism, climbing (see also "climbing in bonobos")and brachiation, makes part of the locomotory behaviour of many primates. But, during human evolution, bipedalism has formed an increasing percentage of the locomotory repertoire and ultimately becomes the only type of locomotion in modern humans.
This gradual development of habitual bipedalism is coupled with the transition of an arboreal way of life, where the foot with an opposable hallux has mainly a grasping function, to a terrestrial way of life, where the foot functions as a rigid lever. These changes in locomotion and biotope are reflected in the structure of the foot, the shortening of the phalanges, the occurrence of a longitudinal foot arch and the gradual loss of the opposability of the hallux.
Why study gibbons & bonobos?
The question can be asked why only hominids became habitual bipeds. Indeed, all recent genera of the Hominoidea (apes) show some bipedalism in their locomotor repertoire. It may thus seem surprising that the closest relatives of man, namely the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus), make only limited use of bipedal locomotion, despite the large morphological and morphometrical similarity with humans and the hominid ancestors. Gibbons (Family Hylobatidae), the furthest relatives of man within the Hominoidea, are, in contrast, the most bipedal of all non-human primates and this despite their specific adaptations to an other type of locomotion, namely brachiation.
For example the following is a pro-evolutionary look at the issue (locomotion):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/l_071_02.html
Although they make it seem like an easy enough process (because they have no doubt it happened), do we even know if it is genetically plausible? IOW, are the adaptive differences even achievable by mutations culled by natural selection? Chimps and humans upright posture and bipedal locomotion are only similar in the fact they are both upright and both bipedal. Seeing we are discussing what is the alleged common ancestor of the two (regarding its posture & locomotion), either the chimps lost the ability or the ancestor didn’t have it, and humans & the chimps gained it, albeit to differing extents.
A little Internet research shows us that, using the knowledge we do have, Walter’s assumptions are good. Our means of locomotion, posture and language (including speech) are unique to us. The only reason to assume that those adaptations can evolve is to infer that they did.
Robert: So, you understand design, and you extrapolate that into thinking you know what God might have done? Are you saying that God is somehow limited to the methods of mankind? After all, I don’t envision him a lab cooking up DNA sequences and saying “Aha, this one works. Let’s stick with the plan.” This seems to be your implication.John Paul:
I understand design, design standards (which allow different companies’ products to work together) and what is required to allow separate components to form a symbiotic relationship. Therefore I find this argument to be very strong.
John Paul:
No, that is your inference (btw I didn’t mention God). Sometimes design is mind correlative. For example if you are walking across a meadow and come upon 10000 trees in 100 x 100 evenly spaced rows, would you think nature dispersed seeds in that neat arrangement or would you think it was planted that way intentionally? It is not necessary to know the mind of the designer or the designer in order to detect design.
Do I think the designer was limited? Yes, in the sense that in the physical plane designs are limited by physical law. As far as we know there is only one DNA coding sequence that gives us humans. The ends justify the means so God could have used any method to get the human OS up, running and with the proper hardware.
Do I know why the designer used similar DNA sequences for different organisms? Not exactly but by using science we can hazard an educated guess (IOW we can infer). (see the AiG article I linked to above and my earlier post)
As far as the AiG article it was on topic pertaining to homology and DNA similarity being evidence for a Common Creator. Also it is very relevant to what I had posted. Did you even read it? Has the complete chimp genome been sequenced? No. Have entire genome sequences of chimps and humans been compared? No. In fact much less than 1% of each organisms’ genome has been compared (70 genes).
When AiG proclaims “The DNA similarity data don’t quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!” They are of course referring to the evolutionary claim of similar DNA equals close evolutionary relationships via common descent. Why you think that proclamation undermines the Common Creator scenario is beyond me. To me it shows ingenuity- that is making many different things out of common parts. It also calls into to question the power of DNA. http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/DNA-Myth-CommonerFeb02.htm
It could be that we find out that changes in DNA won’t give us the great transformations required by the ToE.
Homology, including DNA similarity, has been used as evidence for a Common Creator for years. As far as inferring design is concerned once the double helix was discovered any doubts of the validity of design should have been removed. Knowledge is the ally of Creationists and IDists.
On to some numbers:
To further Helen’s point until we have finished the Human Genome Project and the Chimp Genome Project (some 70 genes (well less than 1%) have been compared with less than 1% difference found- 99.01% similar)
[ http://www.uchicago.edu/aff/mwc-amacad/biocomplexity/conference_papers/goodman.pdf *],
we won’t have the proper numbers to work with.
If we use 1% that would be a difference of 32 million base pairs (assuming both genomes are of 3.2 Gbp (Giga (= billion) base pairs)). However until we learn the loci of the differences and what those positions do to an organism all we have are numbers. IOW, in order to get the full effect we may have to wait until Human (chimp) Proteome Project (identifying all proteins) and then the Human (chimp) Physiome Project (how the proteins interact) are complete, or at least underway. But sometimes you work with what you have.
As you will read in the above article “However, there are also differences in the structure of the proteins encoded by genes, which undoubtedly account for some of the observed differences in phenotypes.” David Plaisted offers some insight as to the problems with changing the structure of a protein:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/mutation.html and http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/blocked.html
The basics of which is just how much change can a protein’s structure take and still be a functional part of the chain or function properly in its particular job? How many malfunctioning proteins can an organism handle?
[*from the article: “In order to analyze which amino acid replacements have occurred during the evolution of humans and apes, the evolutionary relationships among the species being studied must be inferred.” Which makes me wonder what happens when a Common Creator is inferred?]
Using just the numbers saying we have a 32 million base pair difference we would have to figure out the mutation accumulation rate of each branch. If we use Helen’s starting assumption of a 50/50 split that would be 16 million base pairs for each divergent branch. 16 million base pair differences/ 5 million years = 3 base pairs per year. We know that can’t be so we break it down into generations. A ten-year generation period would be 30 base pairs becoming fixed in a population every ten years. A twenty-year generation period would be 60, and so on. That is not to have 60 different base pairs in the population, but 60 bp that must become fixed (on average) per organism throughout the population. And if those organisms don’t take over, or get isolated from the population you add the risk of losing that 60 bp in the ensuing generations. One step forward, 2 steps back.Just for reference:
From: http://imbs.massey.ac.nz/evo2.pdf
genetic differences, chimp/human:
- one chromosome fusion
- one enzyme lost (sialic acid)
- a couple of differences in copy number
- many small inversions
- transposable elements activated
- Many indels (insertions/deletions)
- many point mutations
- Some introns expanded/contracted
However the article on the chimp genome project estimates chimps & humans differ in 445,000 coding positions. 445,000/ 2 = 222,500, which amounts to just under 1 (.89) becoming fixed (per generation) in a population with a generation of 20 years. (Plus a number of non-coding mutations. this is considering a split of 5 million years ago).
The article then goes on to say ” Of these differences, the key ones at the nonsynonymous (nucleotide substitutions that change amino acids) sites are predicted to be found on between 2850 and 4000 genes.” So, still assuming a 50/50 split that would be between 1425 & 2000. If it takes much more than (an average of) 1 difference per gene to be one of the key ones, that would mean 1667 would be too few.
Are the assumptions used above good or not? Let the discussion begin.
Here is another article by David Plaisted that is relevant to this part of the discussion although he discusses from the ape-human split which was allegedly before the chimp-human split:
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/plaisted/
[ July 25, 2002, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]