Not necessarily more similar than what? If a human and a chimp were once genetically almost identical, were they physically almost identical too? Or are you claiming that the small number of non-neutral difference were all present originally?
1 Like
Iâm not seeing anything wrong with pointing out that Bill routinely ignores the effects of selection. Itâs true.
1 Like
No. If want to discuss this subject please come up to speed on the real arguments. Your claim would be a straw-man.
If you knock out 73 random genes from an animal do you think it will survive? How would random deletions like this get fixed in a population. Your comment ignores other genes that perform a replacement function.
You regular comments âyou know nothing about thisâ is asserting your superior knowledge.
Youâre denying he has superior knowledge?
1 Like
Bill you didnât answer the questions. Please try again. How would advocating âmindâ be a control group?
1 Like
Do you really think science says one individual was born lacking 73 random genes?
1 Like
I understand that is your position. However, characteristically it does not address anything I wrote.
But all of this is just your personal opinion. You never provide evidence that it is true.
This is your opinion because of your religious views, and that is why your opinion is arbitrary rather than evidence based. This is indeed why you disagree, but it says absolutely nothing about the validity of the arguments of those with whom you disagree.
Here is a list of your most common responses to actual scientific evidence.
- I respectfully disagree.
- I donât see how⊠I donât believe itâs possible that⊠It seems impossible to me thatâŠ
- I think we have common ground, but we are interpreting the evidence in different ways.
- This is an interesting point, and I would like to think about it further. [in response to evidence which completely contradicts your claims; you never return to it]
- This looks credible, but needs further research. [in response to evidence which completely contradicts your claims; you never return to it]
Here are some literal examples of you avoiding evidence, retreating with stock phrases.
After this discussion it would be interesting to open a discussion on this topic.
You have brought up a very interesting case.
I find it interesting to read the comments on articles such as these. Lots of interesting comments
Your idea of measuring homoplasy is interesting and John came up with a measurement criteria between 0 and 1. Thanks for pointing me here.
This is an interesting point.
An interesting comment here.
This is a very interesting observation.
I am finished with this discussion at this point thank you for the interesting engagement.
Then there are your repeated claims that physics will soon hit some kind of âwallâ (which you never identify), and that biology has already hit an equally unidentified âwallâ.
I think physics may hit this same wall with information as a component of matter that biology has hit when DNA was discovered to be a translatable sequence.
I think physics may hit this same wall with information as a component of matter that biology has hit when DNA was discovered to be a translatable sequence.
You can arbitrarily rule out design but this is not going to last, Physics will soon hit the same wall as biology has with the observation of translated sequences.
Your arguments can be summarized thus.
- Argument from personal incredulity (the vast majority of your arguments).
- Argument from personal misunderstanding of the science (this happens almost every time you actually discuss the science).
Thatâs it. You never present any actual evidence for your arguments, and you never perform any experimentation or research. Then you try to tell other people that they arenât credible.
9 Likes
So Ewert does allow for gene loss in his analysis? How does he do that?
Probably not. What makes you think the missing genes are random? What makes you think they were all knocked out at once?
Still not an argument from authority, though. If anything, it would be an argument from your lack of authority, but it isnât even that. Itâs just a statement of fact. And when have I ever claimed that you know nothing about a subject that you actually know something about?
1 Like
Bill, the animal lacking those genes is alive, right? It doesnât have those genes, so clearly it doesnât need them. It is alive and well, without those 73 genes. So why canât it have lost them?
Pseudogenes are a thing. You, me, we all have them.
1 Like
indeed. after all even modern species are very similar to each other.
yep. and from that point they accumulated neutral mutations over time.
The pufferfish (fugu) genome is 0.4 billion bases. The human genome is 3 billion bases. I havenât looked, but I am betting that there are many genes in the human genome that are not found in the fish genome, and vice versa. How do you explain all of this?
You need to demonstrate this.
1 Like
I provide lots of evidence. Your cognitive bias discounts it.
This is an assumption you make which is false. I could say your cognitive bias is because of your political views but that is just speculation. I think the science as explained to the public of the theory of evolution is not based on any solid scientific basis. I also believe that thousands of marginal papers are being generated in biology form shaky assumptions.
The rest of you comments I respectfully disagree with 
My assumption is your understanding of cellular biology is very limited but I could be wrong. That is why you donât understand the evidence I have shown. Letâs start here.
Humans donât have a functioning L-gulonolactone oxidase gene (GULO) which is needed to produce vitamin C. We have remnants of the gene, called a pseudogene, but no functioning GULO gene. How is this not evidence for gene loss?
We have as many or more pseudogenes than we have functioning genes. Again, how is this not evidence for gene loss?
2 Likes
Are these results published in a journal? Can you direct me there?
There are at least 2 papers that you would be interested in.
First, there is the paper that contains the graph that kicked all of this off. You will want to look at figure 6 in the supplementary material.
There is also a paper by Ebersberger et al. (2002) that discusses the same material, and has this figure:
Figure 4
Genomewide average frequencies for various nucleotide differences between chimpanzees and humans ( A ) and among humans ( B ). Ti = transitions.
3 Likes
Are these medical journals? Yes, I guess so. I am looking for published results drawing the same conclusions as Schnaffner and the other author on this forum.
Where? Again these are empty assertions. Iâve actually already tried some of your assertions, like your claim that âmindâ is a âmechanismâ which produces de novo proteins. Hereâs a test.
- I have a mind.
- [something happens here]
- A de novo protein appears.
As you can see, something is missing, namely the mechanism. Please describe part two in detail. Please describe how I can use my mind to bring a de novo protein into being.
Prove it.
But you donât provide any evidence of this. If your claims are true, why are you not having them published in peer reviewed literature? Your claim requires that the overwhelming number of professional scientists on the planet are in the wrong. Thatâs something which requires a great deal of evidence.
This proves exactly the point I made previously.
This is completely irrational, because youâve had so many people with an advanced understanding of cellular biology that you donât understand it. Iâve seen them correcting you repeatedly. They have pointed out again and again that you donât understand the subject, and often demonstrate ignorance of the articles you cite.
As usual, you throw out a link to an article without explaining its relevance, or even explaining what you think the article is about. What conclusion do you draw from this, and is your conclusion actually described in the article? Do professionals draw the same conclusion from this article?
1 Like
They are peer reviewed science journals. The papers were written by the scientists who did the research, and it contains their results and analysis. They draw the same conclusions @glipsnort and @evograd have drawn.
4 Likes
I did not find that. The 2nd one has the starting assumption of common ancestry but I did not find in either where they believe that the analysis actually concludes their starting assumption. Can you quote something you are seeing?
Itâs whim of course. Come on John, get with the program.