The illusion of evolution and how it works

[Mr_Wilford]

I'm only lurking and I'm not gonna get involved here, but for those intrested here's a .pdf of the paper he's quoting. Posting from my phone so tell me if it doesn't work.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://pagelab.wi.mit.edu/pdf/2010%2520-%2520Chimpanzee%2520and%2520human%2520Y%2520chromosomes%2520are%2520remarkably%2520divergent%2520in%2520structure%2520and%2520gene%2520content.pdf&ved=0CBwQFjAAahUKEwjt9dnQyfzGAhUMWx4KHREuA-4&usg=AFQjCNHbhzKQaPRITrNQaP9y_chyCPZjwg&sig2=dpCZIraSNF_BxVLloIge4g

 

[Rhed]

I'm only lurking and I'm not gonna get involved here, but for those intrested here's a .pdf of the paper he's quoting. Posting from my phone so tell me if it doesn't work.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://pagelab.wi.mit.edu/pdf/2010%2520-%2520Chimpanzee%2520and%2520human%2520Y%2520chromosomes%2520are%2520remarkably%2520divergent%2520in%2520structure%2520and%2520gene%2520content.pdf&ved=0CBwQFjAAahUKEwjt9dnQyfzGAhUMWx4KHREuA-4&usg=AFQjCNHbhzKQaPRITrNQaP9y_chyCPZjwg&sig2=dpCZIraSNF_BxVLloIge4g

Yes, that is the paper. I should apologize for the confusion. I posted the link about a week ago but responded today to (fill in the blank because I can't remember) but didn't re-post the link. I thought the posters knew what I was referring to. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Rhed]

I'm only lurking and I'm not gonna get involved here, but for those intrested here's a .pdf of the paper he's quoting. Posting from my phone so tell me if it doesn't work.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://pagelab.wi.mit.edu/pdf/2010%2520-%2520Chimpanzee%2520and%2520human%2520Y%2520chromosomes%2520are%2520remarkably%2520divergent%2520in%2520structure%2520and%2520gene%2520content.pdf&ved=0CBwQFjAAahUKEwjt9dnQyfzGAhUMWx4KHREuA-4&usg=AFQjCNHbhzKQaPRITrNQaP9y_chyCPZjwg&sig2=dpCZIraSNF_BxVLloIge4g

It's on page 1 for this topic. I'll re-post it.

A study comparing the Y chromosomes from humans and chimpanzees shows that they are about 30% different.
Below is a diagram of the "Comparison of chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://pagelab.wi.mit.edu/pdf/2010%2520-%2520Chimpanzee%2520and%2520human%2520Y%2520chromosomes%2520are%2520remarkably%2520divergent%2520in%2520structure%2520and%2520gene%2520content.pdf&ved=0CBwQFjAAahUKEwjt9dnQyfzGAhUMWx4KHREuA-4&usg=AFQjCNHbhzKQaPRITrNQaP9y_chyCPZjwg&sig2=dpCZIraSNF_BxVLloIge4g

It's to scale, so if you look closely, you'll see a "break" with two slashes indicating they had to cut some of it out because it was too large.

Now if anyone compares the two without prejudice, one can clearly say they are not related. Evolutionists on the other hand make up ad hoc explanations and say..."well they evolved much faster than we thought in the last 5-10 million years. Nature concluded that since the separation of the chimpanzee and human lineages, comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human at 310 million years of separation.

Since evolution is a fact to them, and since humans and chimp share a common ancestor, they come up with storytelling such as:

"We suggest that the extraordinary divergence of the chimpanzee and human MSYs was driven by four synergistic factors: 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."

Did you count the rescuing devices used to save a theory? If you take the human-ape ancestry away from the equation, then there is no issue. Notice the ad hoc explanations to fit a theory. Too many ad hocs run into a logical fallacy called Ockham’s Razor.
Genetics prove evolution except when it doesn’t. A win-win here also. If humans share a common ancestor, and the DNA doesn’t match, then it chose one of the above rescuing devices. You can’t falsify common descent.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Your link only gave me an error page. You might just want to post the one I linked

 

[Rhed]

Your link only gave me an error page. You might just want to post the one I linked

Done. Thanks again.

 

[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.

I admit I'm not a scientist, but a layperson trying to take cheap snipes at a field of science I barely know anything about.

But as someone with integrity like yourself, surely you wouldn't be using the cheap shot logical fallacy "Argument from authority". Would you?

 

[SpecialFrog]

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".

That is not splitting hairs at all. Something rare can happen a lot over long period. Something that doesn't happen cannot. Surely with your mathematical skills you recognize that this is an important distinction.

If four significant changes can happen over 13 generations, how much can happen over 200 000+ generations?

 

[Mr_Wilford]

That is not splitting hairs at all. Something rare can happen a lot over long period. Something that doesn't happen cannot. Surely with your mathematical skills you recognize that this is an important distinction.

If four significant changes can happen over 13 generations, how much can happen over 200 000+ generations?

That and mutations are compounded by the fact that the Y chromosome has no partner to recombine with, so mutations get fixed a lot more easily.

 

[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".[/quote]

That is not splitting hairs at all. Something rare can happen a lot over long period. Something that doesn't happen cannot. Surely with your mathematical skills you recognize that this is an important distinction.

If four significant changes can happen over 13 generations, how much can happen over 200 000+ generations?

To put it into perspective, I'll quote a snippet from the article about chickens and humans:
Nature concluded that since the separation of the chimpanzee and human lineages, comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human at 310 million years of separation.

And why is the "Y" not moving as fast as it did the past? Y is that?

 

[Rhed]

That and mutations are compounded by the fact that the Y chromosome has no partner to recombine with, so mutations get fixed a lot more easily.

Take a long look at those charts in the PDF article. From a naturalistic perspective, chimp and human Y chromosomes are "horrendously different". The difference does not make any sense when compared to slow evolution of the Y chromosome.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

That and mutations are compounded by the fact that the Y chromosome has no partner to recombine with, so mutations get fixed a lot more easily.

Take a long look at those charts in the PDF article. From a naturalistic perspective, chimp and human Y chromosomes are "horrendously different". The difference does not make any sense when compared to slow evolution of the Y chromosome.

So you say. But you yourself admitted that youre taking cheap shots at a feild you don't know much about. Forgive me if I don't give your evaluation, and claims their proposed solutions as copouts, much weight.

That's all I have to say on the matter, I'm going back to lurking.

Peace

 

[tuxbox]

I'm going back to lurking.

lmao :lol:

 

[Rhed]

That and mutations are compounded by the fact that the Y chromosome has no partner to recombine with, so mutations get fixed a lot more easily.

Take a long look at those charts in the PDF article. From a naturalistic perspective, chimp and human Y chromosomes are "horrendously different". The difference does not make any sense when compared to slow evolution of the Y chromosome.

So you say. But you yourself admitted that your taking cheap shots at a field you don't know much about. Forgive me if I don't give your evaluation, and claims their proposed solutions as copouts, much weight.

The "horrendously different" came from (I believe) a Nature article. I'm not a scientist, but I was kidding about "cheap shots at a field I don't know much about". I was quoting no_man_somebody (or whats his name).

 

[Mr_Wilford]

That and mutations are compounded by the fact that the Y chromosome has no partner to recombine with, so mutations get fixed a lot more easily.

Take a long look at those charts in the PDF article. From a naturalistic perspective, chimp and human Y chromosomes are "horrendously different". The difference does not make any sense when compared to slow evolution of the Y chromosome.

So you say. But you yourself admitted that your taking cheap shots at a field you don't know much about. Forgive me if I don't give your evaluation, and claims their proposed solutions as copouts, much weight.

The "horrendously different" came from (I believe) a Nature article. I'm not a scientist, but I was kidding about "cheap shots at a field I don't know much about". I was quoting no_man_somebody (or whats his name).

Ah, I see. Sorry about that.

Well, either way I'm not up for arguing over it. I'll read around on my own, but I think I'm gonna stay out of this. It's late where I'm at, I need sleep

 

[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.

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!

What? No where in the article does it say anything about moving back the split between humans and chimpanzees to 12 million years ago. Now, where did you get that idea (in other words, citation please). You keep calling things you do not understand "rescue devices" instead of just admitting to your ignorance. Besides the 12 million years, I also do not see any numbers you are working with. Furthermore, I am far from an expert on anything, but I know enough to know that you are just grasping at straws.

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".

You believe it is splitting hairs to point out when you flat out contradict yourself? I remember when you first started posting here and were not afraid to correct yourself and admit you made a mistakes. What happened to that Rhed? I would like him back.

Now, are you ever going to address anything in my other post, or just flat out ignore it like the questions I asked earlier?

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.

I admit I'm not a scientist, but a layperson trying to take cheap snipes at a field of science I barely know anything about.

But as someone with integrity like yourself, surely you wouldn't be using the cheap shot logical fallacy "Argument from authority". Would you?

I am not making an argument from authority, I am telling you to listen to the members is this forum (especially when they correct you on your mistakes). That is unless you think your fellow peers in this forum are authorities. Come to think of it, most of what you are still yammering on about here was covered by Rumraket back on page one of this thread. Why you insist on repeating it is beyond me. However, if you can do it, so can I:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]One chromosome found on one sex in humans and chimpanzees is ~30% different. Amazing! Well, humans have 46 chromosomes, and chimpanzees have 48. We already know chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chromosomes, so to make the math easier for you, we can assume 48 in both species. Now, could you please tell us what a 30% difference in one chromosome looks like compared to 48 chromosomes (assuming all chromosomes are the same length, which we both already know is incorrect)? Than one has to also remember that this chromosome is only found in chromosomal males, plus the Y chromosome is the smallest of all the chromosomes found in primates.

Now answer that question if you wish to still make a big deal about the ~70% similarity between chimpanzees and humans Y chromosomes. I will get you started (falsely assuming the chromosomes are the same size) pairing the Y chromosome back with its partner would make the difference only ~15%. In addition, until this question is answered, your point is moot.

That is not splitting hairs at all. Something rare can happen a lot over long period. Something that doesn't happen cannot. Surely with your mathematical skills you recognize that this is an important distinction.

If four significant changes can happen over 13 generations, how much can happen over 200 000+ generations?

To put it into perspective, I'll quote a snippet from the article about chickens and humans:
Nature concluded that since the separation of the chimpanzee and human lineages, comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human at 310 million years of separation.

:facepalm:

And why is the "Y" not moving as fast as it did the past? Y is that?

That and mutations are compounded by the fact that the Y chromosome has no partner to recombine with, so mutations get fixed a lot more easily.

You got to love it when they ask questions that were already answered.

Oh, and if you want to be sarcastic, [sarcasm]there is a font for that.[/sarcasm]

 

[Deleted member 619]

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

So who made the map?

Is London a map, moron?

Oh, and the name is hackenslash, unless you want me to change your name to cunt.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Rhed, I'm still waiting for you to address the two issues in this post.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Collecemall]

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

So who made the map?

Is London a map, moron?

Oh, and the name is hackenslash, unless you want me to change your name to cunt.

I'm finding this to be a really bizarre theme with reality deniers. For some reason they take great pleasure in purposely getting your name wrong... a few get off on calling you kid/boy/child etc. as if they would know maturity if you bashed them about the head with it.

 

[Alligoose]

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.

I admit I'm not a scientist, but a layperson trying to take cheap snipes at a field of science I barely know anything about.

But as someone with integrity like yourself, surely you wouldn't be using the cheap shot logical fallacy "Argument from authority". Would you?

Surely, you understand that nowhere in his post did he make an argument from authority. He is merely establishing whether or not you are educated on the subject. Which, as you've shown, you are not.

For reference, an argument from authority states "I am right because this guy agrees with me and he's an authority" despite not being verified or agreed upon as an authority in the relevant subject matter. See the following:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

 

[Rhed]

But as someone with integrity like yourself, surely you wouldn't be using the cheap shot logical fallacy "Argument from authority". Would you?

Surely, you understand that nowhere in his post did he make an argument from authority. He is merely establishing whether or not you are educated on the subject. Which, as you've shown, you are not.

For reference, an argument from authority states "I am right because this guy agrees with me and he's an authority" despite not being verified or agreed upon as an authority in the relevant subject matter. See the following:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

I hate it when I'm wrong. Good catch. I try to check my stuff before I hit submit, but in this case I didn't. The correct logical fallacy is "ad hominem".