The illusion of evolution and how it works

[Inferno]

Okay, so where is the boundary? If I bring you two animals, what allows you to tell if they are the same kind or not? After that is done, if I bring you two fossils, will you than be able to do the same thing? Will the pattern that you create using Baraminology be consistent?

This reminds me of a thread I posted a while back.

 

[red]

A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. The universe from nothing to everything cannot happen because of physics.

Untrue in the common sense - depending on how one defines "nothing" - as even without space, time or energy/matter, physics allows for quantum fluctuations.

Life from non-life cannot happen by natural laws.

What does that mean?
Every part of a living organism is "natural".
The sun did not exist, but it does now, and it too is wholly natural.
You seem confused by the idea of "not yet knowing" - as is the case for how life originated - and the need to impose an answer without explanation.

Convergence cannot happen due to scientific laws.

Is there a law of "non-convergence" in biology which precludes it?
It would be possible for creationists to invent a definition of convergence which precluded it under their uniquely proposed law (a la Baraminology) but, otherwise it's a done deal in science.

It's not magic to say there was a Creator that created life. People create stuff like cars, buildings, and cities. To say this stuff was created by natural laws would be magic.

Natural things give rise to other natural things. Our early universe did not contain the elements which now exist and allow for life. These elements were born out of natural laws - not magic.
Your thesis is typical god of the gaps - when it doubt, "god".

 

[Deleted member 619]

Untrue in the common sense - depending on how one defines "nothing" - as even without space, time or energy/matter, physics allows for quantum fluctuations.

This requires clarification, because the true case is even more damning for the assertionist bollocks in Rhed's post.

When we say that the way a physicist defines nothing slightly differently, we're talking about the lowest possible energy state of a field. In realty, the reason we do this is because the removal of all particles and forces is actually impossible, because even empty space has energy, and everything is transparent to gravity. What they're actually saying is that the absence of all forces and matter is an impossible state. The reason for this lies in the uncertainty principle. Thing is, this very principle is exactly what gives us the possibility of a universe being instantiated from absolutely nothing, in the way that the cretinist uses the word, with no magic whatsoever. 'Nothing' is a state that cannot persist, because it would violate the deepest principle of physics.

 

[Rhed]

Now, you are pointing out that chimpanzees have 12% longer genomes than humans do. Humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor 6 – 8 million years ago. Thus, that means there would have been a ~2% gain in the chimpanzee’s or ~2% loss in ours (or a combination of both) every million years. You claim this to be an impossiblility. Well, I am going to have to ask you for your citation that demonstrates this to be an impossibility.

The Y chromosome is unique. You and all of the men in your family have the exact identical Y chromosome. Women have 2 Xs and us men have 1X and 1Y. When you have a boy, he will get his Y from you, not the mother because she doesn’t have one. His Y is an exact duplicate of yours. You have an exact duplicate from your father, and so on. The X chromosome is different where as you may have an X from your father’s mom or your mother’s mom. You get the drift. Anyway, the "Y" does not vary. If we follow the same logic with the 98% human-chimp genome, the Y should be much better than that. When looking at the chart, it is clear that we do NOT share a common ancestor. Even in the paper is said, “By comparing the MSYs of the two species we show that they differ radically in sequence structure and gene content”. But to save the theory, they used many non-observed rescuing devices about the event; such as “rapid evolution” and “wholesale renovation”. It's not that it's impossible, it doesn't match the prediction for evolution.

 

[Deleted member 619]

The Y chromosome is unique. You and all of the men in your family have the exact identical Y chromosome.

Play those two sentences in your head repeatedly until the obvious glaring error sinks in.

 

[Rhed]

Hackey - your signature lines says "DNA is a code in precisely the same way that London is a map."

So who made the map?

 

[Rhed]

The Y chromosome is unique. You and all of the men in your family have the exact identical Y chromosome.

Play those two sentences in your head repeatedly until the obvious glaring error sinks in.

The Y chromosome doesn't vary. Where is the error?

 

[tuxbox]

Hackey - your signature lines says "DNA is a code in precisely the same way that London is a map."

So who made the map?

London is not a map, it is a city!

 

[SpecialFrog]

The Y chromosome is unique. You and all of the men in your family have the exact identical Y chromosome.

Play those two sentences in your head repeatedly until the obvious glaring error sinks in.

The Y chromosome doesn't vary. Where is the error?

Sure about that?

They sequenced the Y chromosomes of two men who were separated by 13 generations. After eliminating repetitive regions, the relevant region of comparison was 10.15 × 106 nucleotides (base pairs, 10.15 Mb). The men differ at four confirmed sites. This gives a mutation rate of 3.0 × 10-8 per generation or 0.75 × 10-10 per nucleotide per DNA replication.

 

[Rhed]

The Y chromosome is unique. You and all of the men in your family have the exact identical Y chromosome.

The Y chromosome doesn't vary. Where is the error?
Sure about that?

They sequenced the Y chromosomes of two men who were separated by 13 generations. After eliminating repetitive regions, the relevant region of comparison was 10.15 × 106 nucleotides (base pairs, 10.15 Mb). The men differ at four confirmed sites. This gives a mutation rate of 3.0 × 10-8 per generation or 0.75 × 10-10 per nucleotide per DNA replication.

This helps humans and chimps common ancestor because....?

 

[Rhed]

The Y chromosome is unique. You and all of the men in your family have the exact identical Y chromosome.

They sequenced the Y chromosomes of two men who were separated by 13 generations. After eliminating repetitive regions, the relevant region of comparison was 10.15 × 106 nucleotides (base pairs, 10.15 Mb). The men differ at four confirmed sites. This gives a mutation rate of 3.0 × 10-8 per generation or 0.75 × 10-10 per nucleotide per DNA replication.

This helps humans and chimps common ancestor because....?

Here I was about to show just how impossible the Y chromosome could have endured that many functional step changes using some math with the given mutation rate by sandwalk, but while reading wiki and papers on the subject, the split is now early as 12 million years. When did this happen? For the longest time it was 6 million because of the molecular clock and dating methods! What about all of those fossil dating methods then?

 

[SpecialFrog]

The Y chromosome is unique. You and all of the men in your family have the exact identical Y chromosome.

This helps humans and chimps common ancestor because....?

So are you acknowledging that the Y chromosome does vary?

 

[Rhed]

This helps humans and chimps common ancestor because....?

So are you acknowledging that the Y chromosome does vary?

Why would I do that???? One mutation in every 30 million base pairs.

 

[Rumraket]

The Y chromosome is unique. You and all of the men in your family have the exact identical Y chromosome.

They sequenced the Y chromosomes of two men who were separated by 13 generations. After eliminating repetitive regions, the relevant region of comparison was 10.15 × 106 nucleotides (base pairs, 10.15 Mb). The men differ at four confirmed sites. This gives a mutation rate of 3.0 × 10-8 per generation or 0.75 × 10-10 per nucleotide per DNA replication.

This helps humans and chimps common ancestor because....?

Here I was about to show just how impossible the Y chromosome could have endured that many functional step changes using some math with the given mutation rate by sandwalk, but while reading wiki and papers on the subject, the split is now early as 12 million years. When did this happen? For the longest time it was 6 million because of the molecular clock and dating methods! What about all of those fossil dating methods then?

The molecular clock is based on genetic loci with relatively constant mutation rates, not the Y chromosome.

The divergence of humans and chimps from our common ancestor happened approximately 6 million years ago.

Since the Y chromosome has a higher than average mutation rate, obviously it will show a greater divergence time if you try to do a molecular clock on the Y chromosome using the same assumed mutation rate as other chromosomes with lover mutation rates. Since more mutations have accumulated in Y, it will calculate as having diverged much longer ago if you use a low rate of accumulation.

You can only do a molecular clock if you have some idea about what the mutation rate is over long timescales (and not all loci in the genome evolve at the same rate, so this requires knowledge of the chemical environment of specific genomic loci and what kinds of changes they undergo). This mutation rate is then factored into the clock. That means if you want to do a molecular block using the Y chromosome, you need to factor in the mutation rate of the Y chromosome, not a mutation rate from another chromosome that accumulates mutations more slowly.

 

[Rumraket]

So are you acknowledging that the Y chromosome does vary?

Why would I do that?

Because it is an observed fact?

 

[SpecialFrog]

This helps humans and chimps common ancestor because....?

So are you acknowledging that the Y chromosome does vary?

Why would I do that???? One mutation in every 30 million base pairs.

Because you clearly recognize that the figure you just quoted is greater than zero?

 

[Rumraket]

One mutation in every 30 million base pairs.

No, you get that number wrong.

It's approximately one mutation every 2.5 million bases. The number was: "After eliminating repetitive regions, the relevant region of comparison was 10.15 × 10[sup]6[/sup] nucleotides (base pairs, 10.15 Mb). The men differ at four confirmed sites. "

Four sites out of approximately 10 million. That's about 1 mutation in every 2.5 million bases in the Y chromosome.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Rhed, remember when I asked if you were a biologist or anthropologist? Well, the answer to that questions seems obvious to everyone right now.

Now, after you are done learning about the Y chromosome from all these nice people, perhaps you could go back and actually address my last comment to you. You quoted part of it, but did not address it.

 

[Rhed]

Rhed, remember when I asked if you were a biologist or anthropologist? Well, the answer to that questions seems obvious to everyone right now.

Now, after you are done learning about the Y chromosome from all these nice people, perhaps you could go back and actually address my last comment to you. You quoted part of it, but did not address it.

Amazing. And this is why the split between human and chimp is now 12 million years old and not 6 million due to genetic research. The link by sandbag was in 2009, before the MSY research paper I posted (2010).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html

And I quote:
By comparing the MSYs of the two species we show that they differ radically in sequence structure and gene content, indicating rapid evolution during the past 6 million years. The chimpanzee MSY contains twice as many massive palindromes as the human MSY, yet it has lost large fractions of the MSY protein-coding genes and gene families present in the last common ancestor.

And here are the fudge factors (rescuing devices):

the prominent role of the MSY in sperm production, ‘genetic hitchhiking’ effects in the absence of meiotic crossing over, frequent ectopic recombination within the MSY, and species differences in mating behaviour. Although genetic decay may be the principal dynamic in the evolution of newly emergent Y chromosomes, wholesale renovation is the paramount theme in the continuing evolution of chimpanzee, human and perhaps other older MSYs.


But according to these "nice people", who I should learn from, should maybe stop reading outdated material and know that the "Y" chromosome rarely changes. Do you, the expert, support these "nice people"? The numbers I came up with came from the websites THEY provided!

 

[Rhed]

But according to these "nice people", who I should learn from, should maybe stop reading outdated material and know that the "Y" chromosome rarely changes. Do you, the expert, support these "nice people"? The numbers I came up with came from the websites THEY provided!

WARNING: I'll get splitting hair comments because I said earlier that the "Y" DOESN'T VARY". And now I said "RARELY CHANGES".