hooberus

Joined

• started 119 topics
• posted 2,517 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hooberus

• 
  48

  Evidence for evolution, Installment 3a: Mitochondrial DNA and Neandertals

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  okay, everyone, buckle your seatbelts and put on your thinking caps.

  in this week's installment in my continuing series, we'll be examining two (count 'em!

  ) pieces of the evidence and how they relate to each other.. you can check out my previous articles here:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Why I said that chimps really didn't have to do with it, is because of what I read in the following paper: Nature, 325 (1987), 31-6.

  from page 33

  Tentative time scale

  A time scale can be affixed to the tree in Fig. 3 by assuming that mtDNA sequence divergence accumulates at a constant rate in humans. One way of estimating this rate is to consider the extent of differentiation within clusters specific to New Guinea (Table 2; see also refs 23 and 30), Australia 30 and the New World 31 . People colonised these regions relatively recently: a minimum of 30,000 years ago for New Guinea 32, 40,000 years ago for Australia 33, and 12,000 years ago for the New World 34 . These times enable us to calculate that the mean rate of mtDNA divergence within humans lies between two and four percent per million years; a detailed account of this calculation appears

  Here's a link to the paper itself on the web with Table 2

  http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/cann/

  Note that using just the colonization ages of that small group of people, would still give very similar mean rates to that one derived by calibration to the human chimp divergence. So There's another way for you that doesn't invole chimps....as far as I understand it...Please correct me if I'm wrong.

  The above does not appear to be directly based on the assumption of evolution, however the dates used for colonization (ie: "40,000 years ago for Australia") are I suspect probably based on uniformitarian dating methods. Uniformitarian dating methods are based on the a priori assumption of a uniform (ie: no recent creation, or recent catastrophic conditions) earth history: ". . . uniformity is not a law, nor a rule established after the comparison of facts, but a methodological principal preceding the observation of facts." Albritton 1967 quoted in Studies in Flood Geology Woodmorappe1999 edition p. 203

  The problem that dates calculated based on the a priori assumption of uniformity are not empirical evidence against a non-uniformitarian historical account.
• 
  48

  Evidence for evolution, Installment 3a: Mitochondrial DNA and Neandertals

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  okay, everyone, buckle your seatbelts and put on your thinking caps.

  in this week's installment in my continuing series, we'll be examining two (count 'em!

  ) pieces of the evidence and how they relate to each other.. you can check out my previous articles here:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  If I understand this correctly, the evidence that all humans are matrilineally related to each other is identical to the evidence that humans are matrilineally related to apes; the difference is only one of degree.
  

  In other words, hooberus, if you accept that science has proven that humans have a common female ancestor, then how can you deny that humans and apes have common ancestry, when the method of proof is the same?

  I don?t think that this is necessarily the case. I believe that the genetic data has caused even most evolutionists to to accept that all humans living today can be traced back to a single individual female. However, I have never heard of any evolutionist claim that the genetic data points to all humans and chimpanzees living today being traceable to be descended from a single individual female ancestor.

  "When we sample people alive today, and examine their DNA to look for clues about their past, we are literally studying their genealogy?the history of their genes. As we have seen, people inherit their genes from their parents, so the study of genetic history is also a study of the history of the people carrying these genes. Ultimately, though, we hit a barrier when we trace back into the past beyond a few thousand generations?there is simply no more variation to tell us about these questions of very deep history. Once we reach this point, there is nothing more that human genetic variation can tell us about our ancestors. We all coalesce into a single genetic entity??Adam? in the case of the Y-chromosome, ?Eve? in the case of mt DNA ?that existed for an unknowable period of time in the past. While this entity was a real person who lived at that time?the common ancestor of everyone alive today?we can?t use genetic methods to say very much about their ancestors. We can ask questions about how Adam and Eve relate to other species (are humans more closely related, as a species, to chimpanzees or sturgeons?), but we cannot say anything about what happened to the human lineage itself prior to the coalescence point." (2002, p. 54, emp. in orig.).

  Wells, Spencer (2002), The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

  Quoted in: How Many Times does ?Mitochondrial Eve? have to Die? by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=13&itemid=2332

  While evolutionists believe that humans and chimpanzees share common ancestry, the fact remains that is ?common ancestor? is thought (based on evolution) to be a pouluation of extinct apes that split around 4-5 mya.

  It is important to remember that Evolutionists believe that everything living today ultimately shares common ancestry (ie: humans, chimpanzees, and tomatoes). And that they (assuming evolution) believe that creatures which are more similar split more recently than creatures which are less similar.
• 
  68

  The evidence AGAINST evolution

  by AlmostAtheist in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  no, sorry, i won't be providing any.

  this is a thread for those that have done some research and concluded that evolution is not how various species came to exist.. have you done the research?

  do you believe that species exist as a result of god's direct creation?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Persons desiring a systematic look specifically at the evidence against evolution may find the following helpful:
  

  Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton 1985 (Denton has since embraced some type of directed evolution, however the arguments presented in this book are well formatted). Semi-technical at times.

  The Biotic Message by Walter ReMine 1993. (A little expenive at $45.00, and a more techincal read, however it is extemely worth it especially for its detailed critiques of evolution).

  Denton's book does not advocate creation it only looks at evolution. ReMine's book is generally a critique of evolution, and he also provides a theory of creation.

  Also see major creationists organizations web sites such as:

  Answers in Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org

  Institute for Creation Research: http://www.icr.org

  Creation Research Society: http://www.creationresearch.org/

  Also see the True Origin Archive: http://www.trueorigin.org (a response to talk origins)
• 
  48

  Evidence for evolution, Installment 3a: Mitochondrial DNA and Neandertals

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  okay, everyone, buckle your seatbelts and put on your thinking caps.

  in this week's installment in my continuing series, we'll be examining two (count 'em!

  ) pieces of the evidence and how they relate to each other.. you can check out my previous articles here:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Hello hooberus,

  The sources I quoted above indicated that the date for ME was calculated using only the following:

  • The observed rate at which mitochondrial mutations occur, and
  • The current worldwide diversity of mitochondrial DNA in humans

  The mitochondrial DNA in chimpanzees does not bear on when the last common matrilineal ancestor of current humans was.

  Could you please show where your sources calculated dates for mtEve without assuming human-chimpanzee assumptions?
• 
  48

  Evidence for evolution, Installment 3a: Mitochondrial DNA and Neandertals

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  okay, everyone, buckle your seatbelts and put on your thinking caps.

  in this week's installment in my continuing series, we'll be examining two (count 'em!

  ) pieces of the evidence and how they relate to each other.. you can check out my previous articles here:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  By comparing the mtDNA of humans all over the world, we find that our most recent common female ancestor, by matrilineal descent, lived about 150,000 - 200,000 years ago. It is vitally important to understand that this does not support the concept of a Biblical Eve character - quite the opposite, actually.

  The data is actually more consitent with the concept of Biblical Eve than is often presented. The dates calculated "150,000 - 200,000 years ago" are based on calculations which assume "an estimated divergence date between humans and chimpanzees of 4-5 million years ago."* Evolutionists compare the percentage difference in mtDNA between moden humans with the difference between humans and chimpanzees and then based on the assumption of evolution calculate dates such as 150,000 etc. years ago for mtEve. These calculations are not threfore independant empirical evidence against Biblical Eve, but are instead built upon the assumption of a chimpanzee-human common ancestor (ie: the assmption of evolution) to begin with.

  * Cell, 90:19?30.
• 
  22

  How can I prove to my wife the WT false prophecy quotes are real?

  by The Leological One in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  my wife's just started reading through a list of false prophecies, and i'm wondering how i can prove these quotes are real and not just put up by people who hate the wt?

  the ones dealing with 1925~!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  If you like I can provide a direct copy of any WT from 1879-1919 (official WT reprint). Also I am not an ex-JW so if the issue comes up this should not be a problem. I have some other recourses as well. PM me if you like.
• 
  53

  Evidence for evolution, Installment 2: Cytochrome c

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is the second installment in my new series on short, understandable, powerful evidences for evolution.

  the first installment is here:.

  installment 1: endogenous retroviral sequences.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Before moving on I wanted to make a point about a calculation in one of my previous posts (I have not been able to edit the post). Regarding my statement:
  

  The number of different possible functional versions of cyctochrome c sequences calculted by Yockey is staggering (2.3 x 10 93 ). However, Yockeys calculations also show that when compared to the number of of possible sequences of the same length as cyctochrome c (110 amino acid length 2.0 x 10 137 possible sequences) that functional cyctochrome c sequences are exceedingly rare.

  2.3 x 10 93 1.15 x 10 137 = 2.0 x 10 -44

  The above calculation was posted by me, not to state that the odds against the evolutionary generation of cyctochrome c are 2.0 x 10 -44 , but that out of the possible sequences (of the same length) functional cyctochrome c sequences are exceedingly rare. This could be a problem for evolution if it is calculated that in order to obtain even one of these (or a similar gene) unrealistic assumptions have to be invoked.

  Furthermore, even if such a gene were generated in order for it to become "ubiquitous" it would have to become fixated into the entire population of replicating organisms. Popuation genetics calculations could possibly pose a severe problem for this.

  source for some points: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv15n3_Protein_Families.pdf
• 
  53

  Evidence for evolution, Installment 2: Cytochrome c

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is the second installment in my new series on short, understandable, powerful evidences for evolution.

  the first installment is here:.

  installment 1: endogenous retroviral sequences.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  On the other hand, if species are related in an evolutionary sense, then we should expect to find cytochrome c protein sequences are more similar for related species, and less similar as relatedness decreases.

  I agree that this is probably expected.
  

  Since other evidence leads us to believe that chimps and humans (for example) are closely related, then we will go way out on a limb and predict that human and chimp cytochrome c should be very similar, whereas yeast cytochrome c should be very different from both humans and chimps.

  Both evolutionists and creationists expect that creatures which are similar to each other phenotypically/bodily (Ie: humans and chimps) will also have more closely sharred bio-chemical similarities than with creatures which are less similar (ie: humans and yeast).

  Those are the predictions. What are the observations?

  Human and chimpanzees have identical cytochrome c sequences. Further, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c differs by about 10 amino acids from all other mammals. All mammals, in turn, have similar cytochrome c (within about 10%) to any other mammal, but a greater degree of difference with any non-mammal. As it turns out, for any species, its cytochrome c sequence is extremely similar to other species that are phylogenically related to it. As the distance between two species increases, the sequences become vastly different. Human cytochrome c and yeast cytochrome c are, as mentioned, about 40% different.

  I hope to shortly post some information on the pattern.
• 
  53

  Evidence for evolution, Installment 2: Cytochrome c

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is the second installment in my new series on short, understandable, powerful evidences for evolution.

  the first installment is here:.

  installment 1: endogenous retroviral sequences.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Since there is an outrageous number of possible functional cytochrome c proteins, then if species are not related in an evolutionary sense, then we should expect to find random variations in their cytochrome c protein sequences. We should not see any patterns of relatedness in the cytochrome c sequences for different species.

  I have a problem with this line of reasoning. The reasoning is that if common descent is not true that then we should expect random variation is the sequences.* This line of reasoning imples that a creator would be expected to use a purely random set of cyctochrome c sequences for the different created kinds/species. This certainly is not a provable assumption (and seems unlikely).

  *This might be a valid assumption only if the alternative to common descent were some form of spontaneous generation of species by purely unguided natural process (something that virtually no one advocates).
• 
  53

  Evidence for evolution, Installment 2: Cytochrome c

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is the second installment in my new series on short, understandable, powerful evidences for evolution.

  the first installment is here:.

  installment 1: endogenous retroviral sequences.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  The protein we'll be discussing today is called cytochrome c. This protein is absolutely essential for life - no creature can live without it. Interestingly, this particular protein can take an incredibly large number of different forms. For example, cytochrome c in yeast is 40% different than in humans. How do we even know we're talking about the same protein? Because when we take the cytochrome c out of yeast, and insert cytochrome c from a human, it works as expected. But it's not just human cytochrome c that works in yeast:
  

  The cytochrome c genes from tuna (fish), pigeon (bird), horse (mammal), Drosophila fly (insect), and rat (mammal) all function in yeast that lack their own native yeast cytochrome c ( Clements et al. 1989 ; Hickey et al. 1991 ; Koshy et al. 1992 ; Scarpulla and Nye 1986 ).

  Notice that the cytochrome c from various different classes of animal all worked in yeast. This demonstrates the fact that there are many different possible varieties of cytochrome c which are all functionally equivalent. As it turns out, analysis of this particular protein has revealed that the majority of the amino acids can be swapped out with other amino acids and still make a functional cytochrome c protein.

  The number of different possible functional versions of cytochrome c is staggering:
  

  Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 10 93 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on these genetic mutational analyses ( Hampsey et al. 1986 ; Hampsey et al. 1988 ; Yockey 1992 , Ch. 6, p. 254). For perspective, the number 10 93 is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number.

  The number of different possible functional versions of cyctochrome c sequences calculted by Yockey is staggering (2.3 x 10 93 ). However, Yockeys calculations also show that when compared to the number of of possible sequences of the same length as cyctochrome c (110 amino acid length 2.0 x 10 137 possible sequences) that functional cyctochrome c sequences are exceedingly rare.
  

  2.3 x 10 93 1.15 x 10 137 = 2.0 x 10 -44