Evolution a hoax?

[aggle-rithm]

First off, microevolution does not explain macroevolution,

Why do you keep saying things that are so clearly wrong? Do you think no one will notice?

 

[randman]

Yes, you repeat a cut-and-paste creationist canard, and he's the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.

The Discovery Institute attempted to do what you're doing, in response to the article. The author's article addressed that in a rebuttal:



In other words, your criticism is inapplicable here.



See the papers mentioned at the link. Here and here, for your convenience.

Specifically, as this table shows, the total length of all 200-something thousand ERVs in the human genome is about 127 million base pairs. However, according to the analysis of the chimpanzee genome at the first linked paper (in the section "Insertions and deletions"), the total indel variation between humans and chimps is no more than 45 million base pairs. In other words, even if every single one of the indel variations between chimps and humans is an ERV, that still leaves 65% of the ERV genes the same between the two species. And, since ERVs can be of wildly different lengths, that potentially means a really huge chunk of ERVs are the same in both species.

This is where the second paper linked above comes in. It tells us:

You are quire obviously misreading the article and the claims. Please cite a peer-reviewed paper stating nearly 100% of ENVs share the same loci. Also, pay attention to what specific areas of DNA are being discussed (for example the formerly considered junk DNA or not).

 

[randman]

doesn't change the fact that the theory of evolution can explain our fused Chromosome 2 and ID cannot.

So you idiotically called me ignorant and I show you to be 100% wrong and still you make a statement like the one above.

The fact human beings can have fused chromosomes is no more evidence for shared ancestry than the fact chimps and humans both have lungs or any feature. In fact, it doesn't even show the fused chromosomes happened with a shared ancestor, but quite the opposite. This happened solely within human lineage and as I showed you quite thoroughly, it still happens today as some healthy people only have 45 chromosomes.

 

[caniswalensis]

I feel like King Canute at the water's edge.

I should probably think about that for awhile.

 

[Dinwar]

Look into it more. Read the links I provided. They deal with rebuttals such as the one you mentioned and others.

Edit to add: thought this was dealt with but cannot remember where. It may not be on one of the links, but regardless, it appears an evolutionist may agree the research indicates the tracks were made in water and has come up with an alternate hypothesis than the creationist. Undoubtedly more work will show who is right.

I looked at this link that randman provided. There's no discussion of the stratigraphy in that paper, which is odd considering ichtheology is largely considered a stratigraphic field (Principles of Sedimentology and STratigraphy inicludes a chapter on trace fossils). This looks like a paleontologist trying to be a stratigrapher, something which is just never a good idea. As my boss says, we can tell a left from a right scapula of a Camelops but differentiating between eolian and subaquious deposits is beyond us. Sad, really--essentially bones are just one type of sedimentary particle--but that's the simple fact: the author does not provide enough information to draw the conclusions they draw, nor does the author's backgroud give me much confidence in their ability to accurately interpret this data.

I do believe the evidence suggests specific plans were predetermined, however they arrived,

This is not ENTIRELY false--certain plans are always going to arise. However, this has nothing to do with a designer. This is simply a reflection of the fact that the physical environment dictates form. There was a great study on mollusk shell coiling, and how it filled morphospace; the result was that no matter the taxa, mollusks living in the same environment have generally the same shell coiling. It's a function of boyance, speed, etc. Walcot actually advocates the idea that certain forms repeatedly arise, and cetaceans certainly support this--however, Walcot acknowledges that this is a case of convergent evolution (this is in contrast to Gould's view that life is contingent, and unpredictable). That said, until a designer is demonstrated proposing a designer as an explanation remains a non-explanation, merely pushing the question back a ways.

 

[randman]

Oh and ANT, wiki here says we have 2.9 BILLION base pairs, not

The 2.9 billion[15][16] base pairs of the haploid human genome correspond to a maximum of about 725 megabytes of data, since every base pair can be coded by 2 bits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome

I'll let you do the math and figure out why you are wrong.

 

[DC]

So you idiotically called me ignorant and I show you to be 100% wrong and still you make a statement like the one above.

The fact human beings can have fused chromosomes is no more evidence for shared ancestry than the fact chimps and humans both have lungs or any feature. In fact, it doesn't even show the fused chromosomes happened with a shared ancestor, but quite the opposite. This happened solely within human lineage and as I showed you quite thoroughly, it still happens today as some healthy people only have 45 chromosomes.

and still ID is not able to explain the our fused Chromosome 2. your farytale is of no use at all.
and i called you ignorant on Evolution, not about chromosome abnormalities.
and you didn't show me wrong because i made no claim in regards to the chromosome abnormalities.

so want to try again? is your fairytale able to explain observed facts? like Human Chromosome 2? or for laboratory observations like nylon digesting bacteria? where is your fairytale used outside the chruch?

 

[DC]

Oh and ANT, wiki here says we have 2.9 BILLION base pairs, not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome

I'll let you do the math and figure out why you are wrong.

not what?

 

[randman]

Figures published in Nature on September 1, 2005, in an article produced by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, show that 24% of the chimpanzee genome does not align with the human genome. There are 3% further alignment gaps, 1.23% SNP differences, and 2.7% copy number variations totaling at least 30% differences between chimpanzee and Homo sapiens genomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_Sequencing_and_Analysis_Consortium

 

[randman]

and still ID is not able to explain the our fused Chromosome 2. your farytale is of no use at all.
and i called you ignorant on Evolution, not about chromosome abnormalities.
and you didn't show me wrong because i made no claim in regards to the chromosome abnormalities.

so want to try again? is your fairytale able to explain observed facts? like Human Chromosome 2? or for laboratory observations like nylon digesting bacteria? where is your fairytale used outside the chruch?

Fused chromosomes are explained quite clearly by medicine. You don't need evo theory or ID or creationism to explain it. You could argue an extreme bottleneck explains how it is so prevalent, but that is still not macroevolution. The changes are totally within the human lineage, and that's near indisputable.

 

[Dinwar]

Figures published in Nature on September 1, 2005, in an article produced by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, show that 24% of the chimpanzee genome does not align with the human genome. There are 3% further alignment gaps, 1.23% SNP differences, and 2.7% copy number variations totaling at least 30% differences between chimpanzee and Homo sapiens genomes.

These numbers are meaningless without context. Anyone care to compare these numbers with those of, say, humans and dogs or humans and lobsters? Without that, we're left with nothing more than the gee-wiz factor.

 

[DC]

Fused chromosomes are explained quite clearly by medicine. You don't need evo theory or ID or creationism to explain it. You could argue an extreme bottleneck explains how it is so prevalent, but that is still not macroevolution. The changes are totally within the human lineage, and that's near indisputable.

so its pure accident that today we find two chromosome in Chimps that match our fused Chromosome 2?

 

[A'isha]

You are quire obviously misreading the article and the claims. Please cite a peer-reviewed paper stating nearly 100% of ENVs share the same loci. Also, pay attention to what specific areas of DNA are being discussed (for example the formerly considered junk DNA or not).

It's in the second linked paper, under the section helpfully labeled "Endogenous retroviral positional variation between chimpanzees and humans".

In it, the paper's authors talk about the gaps, or indels, that they identified in each genome during comparative analysis of orthologous regions. They found 18,395 gap sequences in the human genome, of which 1,495 contained ERV sequences. They likewise found 27,728 gap sequences in the chimpanzee genome, of which 1,608 contained ERV sequences.

When they looked at those ERV sequences, they found:

The presence of an endogenous retroviral sequence in chimpanzees that is missing at an orthologous genomic position in humans can be due to a novel insertion in chimpanzees or deletion of the element in humans. Similarly, the presence of an endogenous retroviral sequence in humans that is missing at an orthologous genomic position in chimpanzees can be due to novel insertion in humans or due to deletion of the element in chimpanzees. Because endogenous retroviruses do not precisely excise from insertion sites [4], it is possible to distinguish between these two possibilities. If a region in humans orthologous to the position of an endogenous retroviral insertion in chimpanzees contains a remnant of endogenous retroviral sequence (for example, fragmented element or solo LTR), we score the gap as a deletion in humans. If the orthologous region contains no remnant of the endogenous retrovirus but the pre-integration genomic sequence can be clearly identified, we score the gap as an insertion in chimpanzees. The same rules apply for the analogous dataset of the endogenous retroviral sequences present in humans but absent in chimpanzees.

Of the 41 instances where an endogenous retroviral sequence is present in chimpanzees but lacking in humans, 29 were due to novel insertions in chimpanzees while 12 were deletions in humans (Tables ​33 and ​and 4; Figure ​Figure.6a). Of the 31 instances where an endogenous retrovirus is present in humans but absent in chimpanzees, we found that 8 were due to novel insertions in humans while 23 were deletions in chimpanzees (Table ​4; Figure ​Figure 6b). Of the 29 novel insertions in chimpanzees, 25 belong to the CERV 1/PTERV1 family, 2 to the CERV 2 family, 1 to the CERV 3 (HERVS7 1) family and 1 to the CERV 30 (HERVK10) family whereas all the 8 novel insertions in humans belong to the CERV 30 (HERVK10) family (Tables 33 and ​and 4).

In other words, only 41 ERV sequences in chimpanzees found out of 1608 total were not found at an orthologous genomic position in humans. That's just 2.5%, which means 97.5% of the ERV sequences indentified in in the chimpanzee genome had the same sequence at an orthologous genomic position in humans.

Likewise, only 31 ERV sequences in humans found out of 1495 total were not found at an orthologous genomic position in chimpanzees, so 97.9% of the ERV sequences identified in the human genome had the same sequence at an orthologous genomic position in chimpanzees.

 

[Wowbagger]

And ID does have a way to rule the "accident" hypothesis out. Forensic science detecting intelligent design is well-founded.

Dust Bin Theory states that the genetic material we find on Earth (DNA, RNA, etc.) was a produced by an Intelligent Designer, but not actually designed.

The theory purports that the Designer was designing Perfect Life Forms to populate another planet. But, along the way, a few snippets of genetic code failed to meet His exacting demands. So that stuff got tossed into a Dust Bin, and never meant to produce life, although some of it managed to do so, anyway.

And, that "Dust Bin" happened to be on the planet Earth.

What test would you propose for ruling out Dust Bin Theory?

 

[randman]

so its pure accident that today we find two chromosome in Chimps that match our fused Chromosome 2?

No, but it's no more and arguably less significant than if humans had 48 chromosomes, or that humans are primates in general and have some shared features such as hands and feet.

There is absolutely nothing outstanding about fused chromosomes as some sort of evidence for macroevolution. No one even claims the chromosomes were fused prior to human beings existing. I guess you could say it is an attempt to counter the evidence against common descent in the fact humans have less chromosomes, but it's not as if I see people making a big deal about that.

On balance, it's slightly more evidence against macroevolution than for it, but it's not strong evidence either way.

 

[randman]

Dust Bin Theory states that the genetic material we find on Earth (DNA, RNA, etc.) was a produced by an Intelligent Designer, but not actually designed.

The theory purports that the Designer was designing Perfect Life Forms to populate another planet. But, along the way, a few snippets of genetic code failed to meet His exacting demands. So that stuff got tossed into a Dust Bin, and never meant to produce life, although some of it managed to do so, anyway.

And, that "Dust Bin" happened to be on the planet Earth.

What test would you propose for ruling out Dust Bin Theory?

Most ID in biology could work with aliens as the intelligence behind the design of biological life, but doesn't work for ID in physics.

 

[A'isha]

Oh and ANT, wiki here says we have 2.9 BILLION base pairs, not



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome

I'll let you do the math and figure out why you are wrong.

What are you talking about? Who said anything about entire genome sizes? I'm specifically talking about base pair length of ERV sequences and total indel lengths. Which are, y'know, a lot smaller than the genome as a whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_Sequencing_and_Analysis_Consortium

Why are you quoting what the user-edited Wikipedia says about the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium's September 1, 2005 paper in Nature, when you've already been given the link to the paper itself?

In addition, perhaps you can tell us what significance you think this has to the current discussion.

 

[randman]

It's in the second linked paper, under the section helpfully labeled "Endogenous retroviral positional variation between chimpanzees and humans".

In it, the paper's authors talk about the gaps, or indels, that they identified in each genome during comparative analysis of orthologous regions. They found 18,395 gap sequences in the human genome, of which 1,495 contained ERV sequences. They likewise found 27,728 gap sequences in the chimpanzee genome, of which 1,608 contained ERV sequences.

When they looked at those ERV sequences, they found:



In other words, only 41 ERV sequences in chimpanzees found out of 1608 total were not found at an orthologous genomic position in humans. That's just 2.5%, which means 97.5% of the ERV sequences indentified in in the chimpanzee genome had the same sequence at an orthologous genomic position in humans.

Likewise, only 31 ERV sequences in humans found out of 1495 total were not found at an orthologous genomic position in chimpanzees, so 97.9% of the ERV sequences identified in the human genome had the same sequence at an orthologous genomic position in chimpanzees.

You must be misinterpreting the study because 1,608 minus 1,495 is more than 41 by itself alone.

And there are many more ERVs than 1495.

 

[DC]

No, but it's no more and arguably less significant than if humans had 48 chromosomes, or that humans are primates in general and have some shared features such as hands and feet.

There is absolutely nothing outstanding about fused chromosomes as some sort of evidence for macroevolution. No one even claims the chromosomes were fused prior to human beings existing. I guess you could say it is an attempt to counter the evidence against common descent in the fact humans have less chromosomes, but it's not as if I see people making a big deal about that.

On balance, it's slightly more evidence against macroevolution than for it, but it's not strong evidence either way.

and still your fairytale is used in churches, while the theory of evolution is taught to students in universities around the globe, used by scientists aroudnt he world, used in modern medicine on a daily basis. And the biatch works. it works. no matter how mucht hat contradicts your believs.

your fairytale is not able to explain observed phenomena and is not used to do anything productive anywhere in the world.

how come modern medicine is using the theory of evolution and not the fairytale of creation?

 

[DC]

You must be misinterpreting the study because 1,608 minus 1,495 is more than 41 by itself alone.

And there are many more ERVs than 1495.

you are not grasping the stuff Ant gave you. this is clear.