The Theory of Evolution

[NeenerNeener]

It says " 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts."

and

"Chimpanzee chromosome 22 is the ortholog of human chromosome 21."

then

"Sakaki said their analysis found about 68,000 insertions or deletions. "That is almost one insertion/deletion every 470 bases," he said. In addition, a small proportion of genes showed a relatively higher rate of evolution than most other genes. "We haven't known what proportion of the genes shows adaptive evolution. This study shows it to be about 2 to 3%," he said."

Interesting discovery. How does it undermine evolution?

 

[Riprorin]

I didn't bring up chimps, Gigantopithecus did.

I'm not sure why he brought them up.

You'll have to ask him.

I just pointed out that the genetic difference between chimps and humans are greater than he suggested.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

I brought up chimps to answer the questions posed by NeenerNeener - you should try reading the whole thread.

The article you cited was restricted to chromosome 22 of chimps (the same as our 21st chromosome). In both species that chromosome is extremely tiny and contains far base pairs than any of the other chromosomes. So, I'm not really sure what your point in citing it was other than another red herring.

And you still haven't told me what the difference between 'types', 'varieties', and 'kinds' (you might have missed my post asking that when you missed NeenerNeener's).

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
I brought up chimps to answer the questions posed by NeenerNeener - you should try reading the whole thread.

The article you cited was restricted to chromosome 22 of chimps (the same as our 21st chromosome). In both species that chromosome is extremely tiny and contains far base pairs than any of the other chromosomes. So, I'm not really sure what your point in citing it was other than another red herring.

And you still haven't told me what the difference between 'types', 'varieties', and 'kinds' (you might have missed my post asking that when you missed NeenerNeener's).

He asked about the similarities between humans and apes, not humans and chimps.

I have a question. Comparing humans to apes: How similar are the two flavors of DNA strands? I've heard that they are over 99% similar, but I don't believe everything I hear.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

You really do never cease to amaze me.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

If you can read biology literature, and conclude that mutation producing changes is an impossibility...

edit, I really don't know how to finish that sentence, because that part is just so obvious...

Your conclusion is absurd. You pretend that there's some glaring hole with respect to mutation's role in biological evolution, and that the community of evolutionary biologists just ignore this huge hole and continue to overwhelmingly support the theory in spite of the emptiness of the models.

Compare this with every other branch of science, where you can't even get anything published in a major journal if there are fundamental flaws. Yet you claim that evolutionary biology is different from the rest of science: There's some vast conspiracy to disregard a fatal flaw in the theory.

By your own words, you indicate that mutations don't necessarily render offspring sterile, why then do you have such a difficult time accepting that large genetic differences can occur in even a single generaation?

So mutation clearly plays a major and viable role in evolution. If one factors in the combined effects of mutation, natural selection, the founder effect, and genetic drift, large genetic changes can occur in relatively short time periods.

So absolutely nothing you've written here indicates any weakness in the theories. You continue to pretend that "natural selection" is all there is to biological evolution, despite the fact that you've repeatedly been told that that's a gross distortion.

Why do you persist in lying like this?

Admit it, if the modern theory of evolution were "proven" to be true, your little religious world would come tumbling down on top of you. Because of that, it doesn't matter to you how overwhelming the evidence in support of evolution is. You are ideologically opposed to the theory.

Stop pretending you're having an honest scientific debate. You are opposed to evolution because the bible tells you a different story. Admit it.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
I brought up chimps to answer the questions posed by NeenerNeener - you should try reading the whole thread.

The article you cited was restricted to chromosome 22 of chimps (the same as our 21st chromosome). In both species that chromosome is extremely tiny and contains far base pairs than any of the other chromosomes. So, I'm not really sure what your point in citing it was other than another red herring.

And you still haven't told me what the difference between 'types', 'varieties', and 'kinds' (you might have missed my post asking that when you missed NeenerNeener's).

Baraminology?Classification of Created Organisms

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
I have a question. Comparing humans to apes: How similar are the two flavors of DNA strands? I've heard that they are over 99% similar, but I don't believe everything I hear. As far as I understand, the double helix of the DNA strand is composed of Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, and Thymin. Each rung of the pseudo-ladder has four of these amino acids, with only two pairings possible. How many "rungs" are in the human ladder and how many in the Ape's DNA ladder?

The double helix of a DNA strand is indeed composed of the four nucleotides, adenine, guanine, cytosine & thymine. Those compounds are called nitrogenous bases (not amino acids). Adenine only binds to thymine, guanine only binds to cytosine. The DNA ladders of all of the great apes (chimps, gorillas, orangs, and humans) each have about 3 billion rungs.

Most of those rungs, however, don't do anything (that we know about yet).

Figures on the similarity between human & chimp DNA are given anywhere from 96-99%, based on different analytical/comparative techniques. The take home message, however, is that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is to anything else.

Not so fast.

Chimps are not like humans - Whole-chromosome comparison reveals much greater genetic differences than expected

You have to ask yourself whether or not the deletions or insertions into the nucleotide sequence effectively changed the protein sequence. That would have been a far better study, as the genetic code is redundant and substitutions, deletions and insertions can all be made while still maintaining the integrity of the protein it codes. Not only that but there can be only a handful of amino acids in any given protein which are critical for function. The rest could be substituted or deleted and still maintain the proteins function. An example can be found in sickle cell anemia. Change the sixteenth amino acid and sickle shaped red blood cells will form. However changing the fifthteenth or fourteenth amino acids don't produce the same change from a normal blood cell to that of a sickle.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
I brought up chimps to answer the questions posed by NeenerNeener - you should try reading the whole thread.

The article you cited was restricted to chromosome 22 of chimps (the same as our 21st chromosome). In both species that chromosome is extremely tiny and contains far base pairs than any of the other chromosomes. So, I'm not really sure what your point in citing it was other than another red herring.

And you still haven't told me what the difference between 'types', 'varieties', and 'kinds' (you might have missed my post asking that when you missed NeenerNeener's).

Baraminology?Classification of Created Organisms

Shira just asked you to admit you're opposed to evolution because the Bible tells you a different story. How kind of you to oblige!

"General guidelines [in using Baraminology] which have been utilized include:

1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations."

Tell me, when you were pursuing your minor in biology, did you often cite Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal in your papers?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

If you can read biology literature, and conclude that mutation producing changes is an impossibility...

edit, I really don't know how to finish that sentence, because that part is just so obvious...

Your conclusion is absurd. You pretend that there's some glaring hole with respect to mutation's role in biological evolution, and that the community of evolutionary biologists just ignore this huge hole and continue to overwhelmingly support the theory in spite of the emptiness of the models.

Compare this with every other branch of science, where you can't even get anything published in a major journal if there are fundamental flaws. Yet you claim that evolutionary biology is different from the rest of science: There's some vast conspiracy to disregard a fatal flaw in the theory.

By your own words, you indicate that mutations don't necessarily render offspring sterile, why then do you have such a difficult time accepting that large genetic differences can occur in even a single generaation?

So mutation clearly plays a major and viable role in evolution. If one factors in the combined effects of mutation, natural selection, the founder effect, and genetic drift, large genetic changes can occur in relatively short time periods.

So absolutely nothing you've written here indicates any weakness in the theories. You continue to pretend that "natural selection" is all there is to biological evolution, despite the fact that you've repeatedly been told that that's a gross distortion.

Why do you persist in lying like this?

Admit it, if the modern theory of evolution were "proven" to be true, your little religious world would come tumbling down on top of you. Because of that, it doesn't matter to you how overwhelming the evidence in support of evolution is. You are ideologically opposed to the theory.

Stop pretending you're having an honest scientific debate. You are opposed to evolution because the bible tells you a different story. Admit it.

I can think of many harmful mutations (cholesterol-related mutations, cystic fibrosis mutation, cancer, etc.) but I can't think of any positive ones.

Can you name a mutation one mutation that has increased the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
I brought up chimps to answer the questions posed by NeenerNeener - you should try reading the whole thread.

The article you cited was restricted to chromosome 22 of chimps (the same as our 21st chromosome). In both species that chromosome is extremely tiny and contains far base pairs than any of the other chromosomes. So, I'm not really sure what your point in citing it was other than another red herring.

And you still haven't told me what the difference between 'types', 'varieties', and 'kinds' (you might have missed my post asking that when you missed NeenerNeener's).

Baraminology?Classification of Created Organisms

Shira just asked you to admit you're opposed to evolution because the Bible tells you a different story. How kind of you to oblige!

"General guidelines [in using Baraminology] which have been utilized include:

1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations."

Tell me, when you were pursuing your minor in biology, did you often cite Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal in your papers?

I don't believe in macroevolution because it's not supported by science.

I provided you with an alternative classification system from a creation science prospective like you asked for.

As I recall (it was over 20 years ago), I took courses in general biology, genetics, cell biology, anatomy and physiology, biochemistry and histology.

Not that that's pertinent to this discussion.

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

If you can read biology literature, and conclude that mutation producing changes is an impossibility...

edit, I really don't know how to finish that sentence, because that part is just so obvious...

Your conclusion is absurd. You pretend that there's some glaring hole with respect to mutation's role in biological evolution, and that the community of evolutionary biologists just ignore this huge hole and continue to overwhelmingly support the theory in spite of the emptiness of the models.

Compare this with every other branch of science, where you can't even get anything published in a major journal if there are fundamental flaws. Yet you claim that evolutionary biology is different from the rest of science: There's some vast conspiracy to disregard a fatal flaw in the theory.

By your own words, you indicate that mutations don't necessarily render offspring sterile, why then do you have such a difficult time accepting that large genetic differences can occur in even a single generaation?

So mutation clearly plays a major and viable role in evolution. If one factors in the combined effects of mutation, natural selection, the founder effect, and genetic drift, large genetic changes can occur in relatively short time periods.

So absolutely nothing you've written here indicates any weakness in the theories. You continue to pretend that "natural selection" is all there is to biological evolution, despite the fact that you've repeatedly been told that that's a gross distortion.

Why do you persist in lying like this?

Admit it, if the modern theory of evolution were "proven" to be true, your little religious world would come tumbling down on top of you. Because of that, it doesn't matter to you how overwhelming the evidence in support of evolution is. You are ideologically opposed to the theory.

Stop pretending you're having an honest scientific debate. You are opposed to evolution because the bible tells you a different story. Admit it.

I can think of many harmful mutations (cholesterol-related mutations, cystic fibrosis mutation, cancer, etc.) but I can't think of any positive ones.

Can you name a mutation one mutation that has increased the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein?

Well the first thing that pops into my mind would be our immune system where every day millions of T and B cells are mutated to produce different receptors and antibodies for fighting invasions into our bodies. Without the benefits of these mutations we would be unable to mount an effect attack against bacteria or viruses.

In my sickle cell example, the reason sickle cell anemia persists in the population is because it is an effective way to combat the effects of malaria. Once a cell is infected with the plasmodium it switches to sickle cell shape, rupturing the cell and preventing the plasmodium from escaping our immune system (we can't detect an invasion if it inhabits our red blood cells, they lack any of the receptors our immune system needs in order to check for infection).

And there are people out there who are resistant to HIV because of a mutation in their CCR5 chemokine receptor.

 

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

If you can read biology literature, and conclude that mutation producing changes is an impossibility...

edit, I really don't know how to finish that sentence, because that part is just so obvious...

Your conclusion is absurd. You pretend that there's some glaring hole with respect to mutation's role in biological evolution, and that the community of evolutionary biologists just ignore this huge hole and continue to overwhelmingly support the theory in spite of the emptiness of the models.

Compare this with every other branch of science, where you can't even get anything published in a major journal if there are fundamental flaws. Yet you claim that evolutionary biology is different from the rest of science: There's some vast conspiracy to disregard a fatal flaw in the theory.

By your own words, you indicate that mutations don't necessarily render offspring sterile, why then do you have such a difficult time accepting that large genetic differences can occur in even a single generaation?

So mutation clearly plays a major and viable role in evolution. If one factors in the combined effects of mutation, natural selection, the founder effect, and genetic drift, large genetic changes can occur in relatively short time periods.

So absolutely nothing you've written here indicates any weakness in the theories. You continue to pretend that "natural selection" is all there is to biological evolution, despite the fact that you've repeatedly been told that that's a gross distortion.

Why do you persist in lying like this?

Admit it, if the modern theory of evolution were "proven" to be true, your little religious world would come tumbling down on top of you. Because of that, it doesn't matter to you how overwhelming the evidence in support of evolution is. You are ideologically opposed to the theory.

Stop pretending you're having an honest scientific debate. You are opposed to evolution because the bible tells you a different story. Admit it.

I can think of many harmful mutations (cholesterol-related mutations, cystic fibrosis mutation, cancer, etc.) but I can't think of any positive ones.

Can you name a mutation one mutation that has increased the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein?

Opposable thumbs? I know silly answer.

 

[NeenerNeener]

The idea is that most random mutations will kill us, some will do nothing, some will appear to do nothing until expressed in a later generation, and a tiny percentage will be beneficial in some way. If a mutation makes something better suited for its environment (natural selection), it has a greater chance of surviving to reproduce those characteristics. Repeat over millions of years...

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Can you name a mutation one mutation that has increased the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein?

Opposable thumbs? I know silly answer.

First of all, it's obvious you don't even understand question you've asked: "Efficiency of genetically coded protein" Ok, Rip. Please explain what the question is asking, and why it's relevant.

What you don't seem to understand is that ANY survivial advantage offered by a mutation will increase incidence of that mutation in the population. It doesn't matter what TYPE of survival advantage.

For example, although sickle-cells syndrome is a "negative" in regions without malaria problems, in regions where malaria is endemic sickle cells block entry of the malarial parasite, conferring a survival (and therfore reproductive) advantage.

And there are an infinity of other beneficial mutations: Darker skin pigment protects against intense equatorial sunlight. Eskimos have a much higher percentage of adipose (fat) tissue, helping them survive in cold climates.

Again, admit it: You just don't want to believe any of this stuff. You are pre-disposed to believe that God created all the little creatures on Earth one by one.

Here's the bottom-line question:

What empirical information will make you believe in modern biological evolution and reject ID? Be specific.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

If you can read biology literature, and conclude that mutation producing changes is an impossibility...

edit, I really don't know how to finish that sentence, because that part is just so obvious...

Your conclusion is absurd. You pretend that there's some glaring hole with respect to mutation's role in biological evolution, and that the community of evolutionary biologists just ignore this huge hole and continue to overwhelmingly support the theory in spite of the emptiness of the models.

Compare this with every other branch of science, where you can't even get anything published in a major journal if there are fundamental flaws. Yet you claim that evolutionary biology is different from the rest of science: There's some vast conspiracy to disregard a fatal flaw in the theory.

By your own words, you indicate that mutations don't necessarily render offspring sterile, why then do you have such a difficult time accepting that large genetic differences can occur in even a single generaation?

So mutation clearly plays a major and viable role in evolution. If one factors in the combined effects of mutation, natural selection, the founder effect, and genetic drift, large genetic changes can occur in relatively short time periods.

So absolutely nothing you've written here indicates any weakness in the theories. You continue to pretend that "natural selection" is all there is to biological evolution, despite the fact that you've repeatedly been told that that's a gross distortion.

Why do you persist in lying like this?

Admit it, if the modern theory of evolution were "proven" to be true, your little religious world would come tumbling down on top of you. Because of that, it doesn't matter to you how overwhelming the evidence in support of evolution is. You are ideologically opposed to the theory.

Stop pretending you're having an honest scientific debate. You are opposed to evolution because the bible tells you a different story. Admit it.

Not much of a reader I suppose...

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
I have a question. Comparing humans to apes: How similar are the two flavors of DNA strands? I've heard that they are over 99% similar, but I don't believe everything I hear. As far as I understand, the double helix of the DNA strand is composed of Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, and Thymin. Each rung of the pseudo-ladder has four of these amino acids, with only two pairings possible. How many "rungs" are in the human ladder and how many in the Ape's DNA ladder?

The double helix of a DNA strand is indeed composed of the four nucleotides, adenine, guanine, cytosine & thymine. Those compounds are called nitrogenous bases (not amino acids). Adenine only binds to thymine, guanine only binds to cytosine. The DNA ladders of all of the great apes (chimps, gorillas, orangs, and humans) each have about 3 billion rungs.

Most of those rungs, however, don't do anything (that we know about yet).

Figures on the similarity between human & chimp DNA are given anywhere from 96-99%, based on different analytical/comparative techniques. The take home message, however, is that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is to anything else.

Not so fast.

Chimps are not like humans - Whole-chromosome comparison reveals much greater genetic differences than expected

Well, for once, I wanted to give Rip props for using what appears to be a reputable scientific source.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I can think of many harmful mutations (cholesterol-related mutations, cystic fibrosis mutation, cancer, etc.) but I can't think of any positive ones.

Can you name a mutation one mutation that has increased the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein?

Sure. The CCR5 mutation has already been mentioned, but here's another mutation that protects against disease.

Z Gastroenterol 1996 Jun;34 Suppl 3:56-8

Identification of putative beneficial mutations for lipid transport.

Galton DJ, Mattu R, Needham EW, Cavanna J

Medical Professorial Unit, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, U.K.

To determine the effect of a common mutation (Ser447-Ter) of the human LPL gene upon serum lipid and lipoprotein levels and coronary artery disease (CAD) within a representative adult male population, we analyzed subjects from the Caerphilly Prospective Heart Disease Study (n = 1273). The possession of this mutation associates with protective lipid and lipoprotein profiles. Subjects possessing the mutation have significantly higher HDL-C (p = 0.002) and apo AI (p < 0.04) levels, lower triglycerides (p = < 0.04) and total cholesterol/HDL-C ratios (p < 0.02); all established previously to reduce risk of CAD. We also find that this mutation is significantly less frequent amongst CAD subjects (p < 0.05). These associations provide evidence for a common mutation that appears to confer beneficial lipid and lipoprotein profiles amongst an adult male population with regard to risk of CAD.

PMID: 8767463, UI: 96293219

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I can think of many harmful mutations (cholesterol-related mutations, cystic fibrosis mutation, cancer, etc.) but I can't think of any positive ones.

Can you name a mutation one mutation that has increased the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein?

Hey retard,

I already posted one in that other evolution thread, and I know that you read about it. It's the Factor V Leiden mutation that is very beneficial.

I'll leave you to your religious nonsense, sorry to interupt your day with reality...

(I have concluded that you lack the ability to process basic science, facts, or objective reality. I have decided that it is best that I preface each response by pointing this out with the descriptive word "retard," that way anyone else is quickly alerted to your mental deficiencies).

Oh, and your nonsense about having a science degree is pure BS.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I can think of many harmful mutations (cholesterol-related mutations, cystic fibrosis mutation, cancer, etc.) but I can't think of any positive ones.

Can you name a mutation one mutation that has increased the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein?

There is a tribe somewhere in asia or south america which is quite different. Under normal sircumstances when you dive under water your pupils dialite to counter the lack of light, but it makes your vision very blurry. For this tribe their pupils shrink which gives them a very sharp underwater vision. A genetic trait.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I can think of many harmful mutations (cholesterol-related mutations, cystic fibrosis mutation, cancer, etc.) but I can't think of any positive ones.

Can you name a mutation one mutation that has increased the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein?

What about the mutation that about 10% of Europeans have, where they don't have the receptors that the HIV binds to on their white blood cells, thus making them immune to HIV.

I think that's pretty positive.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
I already posted one in that other evolution thread, and I know that you read about it. It's the Factor V Leiden mutation that is very beneficial.

As someone who is Factor V Leiden and nearly went blind as a result I would tend to disagree. (Hetrozygous are 6-15 times more likely to have a DVT or other clot and Homozygous are 30-60 times more likely) I don't consider my having to take warfarin the rest of my life a beneficial mutation.

But don't let me interupt your math lesson with the livestock.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Tommunist
another reason to continue funding PBS....

True, especially as the anti-evolution Discovery Institute is one of the main political movers behind the threat of defunding PBS.

Discovery Institute doesn't equal the Discovery channel right? Cause that's a pretty kick ass channel.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
I already posted one in that other evolution thread, and I know that you read about it. It's the Factor V Leiden mutation that is very beneficial.

As someone who is Factor V Leiden and nearly went blind as a result I would tend to disagree. (Hetrozygous are 6-15 times more likely to have a DVT or other clot and Homozygous are 30-60 times more likely) I don't consider my having to take warfarin the rest of my life a beneficial mutation.

But don't let me interupt your math lesson with the livestock.

Your numbers are wrong. It is 80-140x more likely for DVT as a homo and 8-10x as a hetero. It is beneficial because it overclots where other disorders underclot, it persists in those same populations.

It's bad that you need warfarin but if you had Factor VIII deficiency you would love your Leiden, I promise you.

And yes, I am a medical student. If you want much more info on it you can see my earlier post on the other evolution thread.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Your numbers are wrong. It is 80-140x more likely for DVT as a homo and 8-10x as a hetero. It is beneficial because it overclots where other disorders underclot, it persists in those same populations.

It's bad that you need warfarin but if you had Factor VIII deficiency you would love your Leiden, I promise you.

And yes, I am a medical student. If you want much more info on it you can see my earlier post on the other evolution thread.

As far as the numbers, they change them every year, my numbers were accurate for 2001.

It persists because (before medical intradiction) the condition often doesn't have symptoms until well after puberty is reached often allowing a person to have offspring before it kills them. It also doesn't propagate further (beyond the 2% that have it) because it causes blood clots in the placenta of women with the condition often making it nearly impossible for them to have children. (It's a standard test in infertility exams). I'm well aware that other blood mutations are far more dangerous but to use that as an excuse to call Factor V beneficial is just inconcievable. As opposed to other mutations it may be less bad, but as opposed to normal clotting, Factor V is a dissadvantage in most cases and as a result a bad mutation. And myself and the thousands of other people that are on warfarin as a result of the mutation are testament to that.