Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 301 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
#15214 09/17/06 12:47 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
T
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
Quote:
Originally posted by terrytnewzealand:

Anyway as far as I know Adam and Eve's sons didn't have three wives so your problem remains.
My post above mentioned Noah. Not Adam.

.
#15215 09/18/06 03:26 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Correct Trilobyte. I was merely pointing out that yet again you are failing to answer any questions members of SAGG are asking.

You wrote: "There is no reason why the differences seen in us humans is nothing more than genetic differences....not caused by mutations..."

If we are all descended from Adam and Eve it is only possible to have two variations of each gene. We know the human population has many variations of many genes. How do "genetic differences" arise if not through mutation?

#15216 09/18/06 04:17 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally posted by terrytnewzealand:
Thanks for that Soilguy. However we know from other species that mtDNA doesn't necessarily reflect nuclear DNA.
No, it doesn't tell is much of anything about nuclear DNA, but it places doubt on the idea that Neandertals and Homo sapiens could cross and have viable offspring if no Neandertal mtDNA can be found in today's human population.

Given that, what other possibilities might exist that could explain similarities between some Homo sapiens genes and Neandertal genes?


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#15217 09/18/06 04:31 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Trilobyte:

So far, you haven't even been able to properly verbalize your argument, but, as far as I can tell, it is this:

A. There are a billion or so base pairs in the human genome, so the chances of any single base pair being changed through mutation is 1/1,000,000,000 (about).

B. In order for mutations to accumulate, those mutations must be in close proximity to each other. The probability of this is small (around 1/1,000,000,000).

You've been told that BOTH of your assumptions are wrong:

a. The chance of mutation in any particular base pair DOES NOT EQUAL the chance in another. Some parts of the genome have high rates of mutation, while others have very low rates.

b. Why would one mutation have to be in close physical proximity to another in order for accumulation to occur? Why would they need to be in close proximity in order for them to affect each other? And, of course, why are you only considering point mutation of base pairs when several other types of mutation, affecting larger numbers of base pairs, are well known?

Given that you heard this from several of us already, why do you still claim that no one is willing to answer your questions?


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#15218 09/18/06 08:27 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
T
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
Quote:
Originally posted by terrytnewzealand:
Correct Trilobyte. I was merely pointing out that yet again you are failing to answer any questions members of SAGG are asking.

You wrote: "There is no reason why the differences seen in us humans is nothing more than genetic differences....not caused by mutations..."

If we are all descended from Adam and Eve it is only possible to have two variations of each gene. We know the human population has many variations of many genes. How do "genetic differences" arise if not through mutation?
Are all the differences in dog breeds due to mutations?

#15219 09/18/06 08:32 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
T
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
soilguy posted:
b. Why would one mutation have to be in close physical proximity to another in order for accumulation to occur? Why would they need to be in close proximity in order for them to affect each other? And, of course, why are you only considering point mutation of base pairs when several other types of mutation, affecting larger numbers of base pairs, are well known?

This is your strawman argument.

I never said close physical proximity to another. What I said is that a mutation must effect the same trait.

Once again the odds say no way for evolution.....or will you mathematically show otherwise?

#15220 09/18/06 08:50 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Once again the odds say no way for evolution.....or will you mathematically show otherwise?"

You haven't computed the odds correctly and so have no basis for asserting that other than wishful thinking. Evolution violates no known physical or statistical law. I'm not claiming (at this point) that evolution is proved by mathematics. I'm saying that it doesn't violate any known law. If you think it does, then it's up to you to prove it does.

#15221 09/18/06 11:40 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
T
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
.....soooooooo, you say i haven't compued the odds correctly???/

Then why don't you post the correct way.

Of course once you try to figure out the odds, you'll realize that you will need to become a creationist.

BTW, where is the law that says extremely rare beneficial mutations can add up?

#15222 09/19/06 03:53 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
trilobyte. You asked:

"Are all the differences in dog breeds due to mutations?"

YES. What else would they be?

#15223 09/19/06 04:05 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Soilguy. You must accept that Neanderthals shared most of their genes with us otherwise they wouldn't have looked remotely like us. The only disagreement between scientists is whether some of their genes survive in the modern human population.

But once you accept they do you can immediately understand every aspect of our evolution. In fact you can understand how all species evolve along with the evolution of many other things.

#15224 09/19/06 08:11 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
".....soooooooo, you say i haven't compued the odds correctly?"

Yes. I do.

"Then why don't you post the correct way."

Because I don't know the correct way. I'm not sure anyone knows at this point. Sometimes in science the correct answer is "I don't know."

"Of course once you try to figure out the odds, you'll realize that you will need to become a creationist."
Lots of people know lots of stupid and false things. You don't know what the odds are - you only know what you feel in your gut.

"BTW, where is the law that says extremely rare beneficial mutations can add up?"
There is no mathematical law that says this. There is, however, a mechanism for doing this and it's called natural selection. There are a few good books that explain this process very well.

If you understood natural selection, you would realize that your question should be, "By what mechanism could beneficial mutations not accumulate?"

#15225 09/19/06 10:57 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
TFF,

I appreciate your calm, patient posts on this when you are obviously being sorely tested by trolls. You do the 'NASTY EVOS' credit wink

Blacknad.

#15226 09/20/06 04:57 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Dear Blacknad,
You must not have seen my other posts where I was less than gentlemanly. I regret it, but I have a dilemma. Something inside of me can't let a lie stand and yet I have the opportunity now of doing actual research - not just doing other people's research, but my own actual research - but I waste my time arguing with guys like trilobyte when I could be reading articles.

#15227 09/20/06 05:28 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
TFF,
Thank you for taking the time to argue with guys like trilobyte. It's hard to leave ignorance unchalllenged, but I'm in no position to rebutt these spurious arguments. I appreciate you taking the time and making the effort.

Amaranth

#15228 09/20/06 08:42 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
I second that. The same goes for Soilguy and TerryT.

Blacknad.

#15229 09/21/06 05:37 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally posted by terrytnewzealand:
Soilguy. You must accept that Neanderthals shared most of their genes with us otherwise they wouldn't have looked remotely like us. The only disagreement between scientists is whether some of their genes survive in the modern human population.

But once you accept they do you can immediately understand every aspect of our evolution. In fact you can understand how all species evolve along with the evolution of many other things.
Yes, but we also share a lot of our genes with chimps and other primates, not to mention the *lower* animals.

What I'm saying is this: mtDNA evidence that we have today indicates that the last common female ancestor of both modern humans and neandertals lived somewhere around 800,000 years ago. (I got this from Olsen's Mapping Human History, which came out about 5 or 6 years ago.) If further evidence confirms this, the last common female ancestor lived before either species came into existence.

This is not the final word on the matter, because when the book was written, only a few mtDNA analyses on Neandertal remains were done. The researchers assumed that the two species mated, since some modern human males will have sex with just about anything. A species that looked an awful lot like us would certainly be a candidate for attempted matings. So there is some good evidence that matings did not produce viable offspring.

mtDNA evidence is not proof that modern humans and Neandertals didn't cross and have viable, fertile offspring, but it's certainly evidence that casts doubt on the idea.

In the case of red hair + fair skin, could the traits have arisen first in a common ancestor? Could the traits have arisen independently in each species?


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#15230 09/21/06 05:50 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally posted by trilobyte:
soilguy posted:
b. Why would one mutation have to be in close physical proximity to another in order for accumulation to occur? Why would they need to be in close proximity in order for them to affect each other? And, of course, why are you only considering point mutation of base pairs when several other types of mutation, affecting larger numbers of base pairs, are well known?

This is your strawman argument.

I never said close physical proximity to another. What I said is that a mutation must effect the same trait.

Once again the odds say no way for evolution.....or will you mathematically show otherwise?
This is NOT a straw argument, and not an argument of my making. YOU made this argument, not me.

You've made assumptions regarding the probability of mutations without any facts. You assume the chances for a mutation to occur anywhere on the genome is equal. It's not.

The mutation rates for parts of the human genome ARE known, but you'd have to do a lit review in a good university library to find them. Then, with a good statistician, maybe you can come up with actual probabilities.

You haven't falsified evolution based on your made up probabilities. Even if you come up with more realistic probabilities, what do they really tell you? Can I say to the winner of a lottery that they couldn't have won, because the odds are against it? That's essentially what you're doing.

While you have your calculator out, what's the probability that Genesis is literally true?


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#15231 09/23/06 01:05 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
T
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
The mutation rates for parts of the human genome ARE known,
reference please...or retract. statement

#15232 09/23/06 01:06 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
T
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
The mutation rates for parts of the human genome ARE known,
reference please...or retract. statement

#15233 09/23/06 05:37 PM
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
Quote:
While you have your calculator out, what's the probability that Genesis is literally true?
100% :-)

Quote:
The mutation rates for parts of the human genome ARE known
we know that there are *hotspots,* that rates are not the same at all loci; mutation rates are not known specifically or precisely but rather generally (and they vary for individuals)

they are assumed based on a fair amount of observation (in the present)...

to then use those assumptions and compound the assumptions by assuming that we can automatically extrapolate those rates to the past (uniformitarianism) puts us a far cry from anything approaching certainty...or even solid

Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5