Evolutionists are morons.

[Lordkalvan]

And if CDists were interested in science, they would be about the business of trying to figure out what the mutations are that separate fish from humans. This might start with a rough estimate of how many mutations it would take. Or between something simpler like the common ancestor between humans and chimps.

Or something simple like the land dwelling ancestor of whales and modern whales. :darwinsm:

If there are around 40 unique genetic mutations in each human child, if a generation is roughly calculated at 25 years and if the estimate of six million years is reasonable for the LCA between humans and chimps, then the average individual alive today has (6,000,000/25)*40 mutational differences from that LCA. Or around 10 million mutational differences. This is, of course, a very simplistic figure (how many are significant and how many aren't, for example?), but do you think it's a starting point?

 

[Lordkalvan]

:darwinsm:

Brilliant, as ever, Professor.

 

[Stripe]

:mock: People who think they are fish.

 

[Lordkalvan]

:mock: People who think they are fish.

Poor Stripe, still failing to understand. Are you 'still' a chordate?

 

[Totton Linnet]

A citation requires if not a link to the relevant quotation, at least the source and page number. Do you have such a citation? Also, are you supposedly quoting Christopher Hitchens or Peter Hitchens? It does make a difference. Do you even know?

I've been busted

 

[Yorzhik]

If there are around 40 unique genetic mutations in each human child, if a generation is roughly calculated at 25 years and if the estimate of six million years is reasonable for the LCA between humans and chimps, then the average individual alive today has (6,000,000/25)*40 mutational differences from that LCA. Or around 10 million mutational differences. This is, of course, a very simplistic figure (how many are significant and how many aren't, for example?), but do you think it's a starting point?

Excellent. There's your baseline. Now get to the experimental data and see if your theory lines up with it.

 

[doloresistere]

Excellent. There's your baseline. Now get to the experimental data and see if your theory lines up with it.

There cannot be ten million mutational differences. There are only 20,000 genes in the genome.

 

[Lordkalvan]

There cannot be ten million mutational differences. There are only 20,000 genes in the genome.

But, presumably, the same gene can mutate more than once? Wouldn't this be expected over this kind of timescale? Genuine question as I'm no geneticist.

 

[Lordkalvan]

Excellent. There's your baseline. Now get to the experimental data and see if your theory lines up with it.

'Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements.'

Source: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2005-10982-005

Looking good to me.

 

[doloresistere]

There would be multiple mutations per gene but I would say most of the ten million mutations are lost because they were not selected for by the environment.

 

[Yorzhik]

'Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements.'

Source: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2005-10982-005

Looking good to me.

This is based on assumed rates, similar to what you did. It's only a baseline and not any kind experimental data.

 

[Yorzhik]

There cannot be ten million mutational differences. There are only 20,000 genes in the genome.

Holy cow but you are behind the times. Most mutations are point mutations, and the definition of a gene get's fuzzier the more we know about it.

Sure, a nucleotide could be changed more than once, but if mutations are random, then it is more likely not.

 

[Alate_One]

There cannot be ten million mutational differences. There are only 20,000 genes in the genome.

The genome is only 2% genes, so . . . there are about 2.94 Billion other spots that could mutate (which is where most of them are). Plus a gene is made of many bases, not one. Making about 60 million bases that compose protein coding regions.

Of course mutations are not only changes in letters, they're insertions and deletions and changes in gene copy number. In other words your objection is nonsense.

 

[doloresistere]

The genome is only 2% genes, so . . . there are about 2.94 Billion other spots that could mutate (which is where most of them are). Plus a gene is made of many bases, not one. Making about 60 million bases that compose protein coding regions.

Of course mutations are not only changes in letters, they're insertions and deletions and changes in gene copy number. In other words your objection is nonsense.

You were fine until your last sentence. My objection was based on what I knew. Your face would be nonsense after you said that to me in real life.

 

[alwight]

No it isn't. :nono:

I'm sorry Al but it is you who is behind the times here...the evolution theory of today is far different to Darwins

Oh no it isn’t. :nono:

Dogs are canine but they didn't occur naturally they were "evolved" by people, but since you do accept that evolution occurs it seems let's move on to horses.

You can take any dog out of the wild today wolf, husky, fox or dingo and train it [I never heard it called "evolve it" before] it can become as domesticated as any other dog.

All the different breeds of domestic dogs were “evolved” artificially by humans. Dingos are closely related genetically to domestic dogs and probably were domesticated at some point.

Equidae (horse family) have been around much longer and unlike dogs have had the time and isolation to become split into different species, some still close enough genetically to produce (unviable) offspring hybrids e.g. mule.

Male horse+female donkey=mule...but the mule is sterile always

Yes that was the point, they can produce offspring but unlike dogs they are too different genetically to produce viable offspring that can reproduce themselves. Dogs only have breeds but Equidae also have species.

Well, If you're so smart and I'm so dumb how is it that I can format posts and you can't? You make it this rather hard work to unravel your replies from my words.
I can also find evidence for what I say but you can't apparently. :nono:

You are not dumb [the title of this thread is not mine] and I am only so-so smart.

I like to answer point by point and I get told off for repeating whole posts...yeah I prolly need to do something different...I know it makes it hard to argue

lain:

Now look here, this is a bit tricky concerning evidence. I HAVE shown you the evidence, the HARD evidence Al it is all under your feet from man's earliest days right up to the present day, everybody knows about it. Just like everybody knows that human population has multiplied from a small number to the billions who now inhabit the earth...and these billions are set to explode in numbers. It is also well established that man has spread out in tribes from a central point throughout the earth.

These are the facts, the HARD facts.

Geneticists will tell you that we humans originated in Africa, and that the human population spread out around the world in a number of traceable routes. It is no coincidence that North American Indians look rather similar to Mongols because that was where they are thought to have come from.

But evolutionists set these facts aside and say there must be further evidence, we just need to dig deeper. They have dug deeper looking for what can only be termed as secondary or soft evidence for the hard evidence is before outr eyes...they have not found this evidence, they have never found this "missing link" as they call it.

Of course such a search, they have dug miles into the earth, must produce a WHOLE MASS of data...enough to fill many books and the internet but none of it amounts to solid proof.

It is this mass of data which evolutionists call evidence, but when it comes to investigating it, proof evaporates like the early morning mist. It is what it always has been what they call a preponderance of probability, what they suppose is the most likely thing to have occured.

It is as though detectives found a body in a pool of blood with a knife in it's back and then started a search for the possible cause of death. It is become a huge money spinner, people making fortunes with their theories, getting billions of tax payer's money to continue their research.

Science doesn’t do “proof” TL, theories simply never get proven, they either remain as the best explanation of the evidence or the evidence will sooner or later falsify them if they are wrong. They don't simply go out of fashion either.
Darwin’s theory has lasted over 150 years, like other theories it will never be proven, but in the opinion of virtually all natural scientists today it will never be falsified either, because they regard it as fact.

 

[Alate_One]

You were fine until your last sentence. My objection was based on what I knew. Your face would be nonsense after you said that to me in real life.

If you want to argue science make sure you get your facts straight. Check before you post if you aren't sure. I do. I've been wrong before and fessed up to it when I have.

I've certainly had far worse said to me concerning much less on this site. Grow a thicker skin, it wasn't a personal attack against you. Truthsmack stings sometimes.

 

[doloresistere]

If you want to argue science make sure you get your facts straight. Check before you post if you aren't sure. I do. I've been wrong before and fessed up to it when I have.

I've certainly had far worse said to me concerning much less on this site. Grow a thicker skin, it wasn't a personal attack against you. Truthsmack stings sometimes.

I can tell you where to stuff your skin you pompous azz

 

[Lordkalvan]

This is based on assumed rates, similar to what you did. It's only a baseline and not any kind experimental data.

So comparing genome to genome isn't good enough for you? Let me guess, nothing would be?

 

[alwight]

Your face would be nonsense after you said that to me in real life.

I can tell you where to stuff your skin you pompous azz

In real life, is threatening a woman (Alate_One) with violence or taxidermy something that comes naturally to you then? :AMR:

 

[Totton Linnet]

Oh no it isn’t. :nono:

All the different breeds of domestic dogs were “evolved” artificially by humans. Dingos are closely related genetically to domestic dogs and probably were domesticated at some point.


Yes that was the point, they can produce offspring but unlike dogs they are too different genetically to produce viable offspring that can reproduce themselves. Dogs only have breeds but Equidae also have species.

lain:


Geneticists will tell you that we humans originated in Africa, and that the human population spread out around the world in a number of traceable routes. It is no coincidence that North American Indians look rather similar to Mongols because that was where they are thought to have come from.

Science doesn’t do “proof” TL, theories simply never get proven, they either remain as the best explanation of the evidence or the evidence will sooner or later falsify them if they are wrong. They don't simply go out of fashion either.
Darwin’s theory has lasted over 150 years, like other theories it will never be proven, but in the opinion of virtually all natural scientists today it will never be falsified either, because they regard it as fact.

Science doesn't do proof?...Al promise me you will never attempt anything electrical.

This is what grieves us because true science is all about provable facts that work time and time again given the same conditions.

That is what I said in my first post evolution is a theory and not scientific fact...but it is presented as a fact, that's what bugs us. So we agree, I am right and you are wrong.