My quick estimate came to less than 10%: about 2500 out of about 27000.
So show your work.
For arguments sake I will yield to your estimate.
Gene loss and gene gain are really very simple concepts. But not simple enough for you to grasp them, I guess.
1 Like
@John_Harshman do you support this claim?
The gene differences we have are simply those that were not immediately lethal. There is a spectrum of fitness effects associated with gene gain/loss, and it is inevitable that differences in gene compliments will accumulate in independent lineages.
Your Venn diagram of shared and unique genes could be applied to the current human population for olfactory genes. The common everyday perception that people have varied senses of smell aligns with intraspecies human genetic variation, and Bill Cole also fits in this pattern. Presumably, you arrived in this world via the usual mechanisms of reproduction.
Polymorphic pseudogenes in the human genome - a comprehensive assessment
No, you don’t agree, because the math contradicts you.
Caution: the following comment contains high levels of irony.
2 Likes
So it stands to reason, then, that a deletion of those genes will not get fixed in a population. And deletions that are not critical might, and considering how deleted genes are not passed on, whilst non-deleted ones are, we should expect deletions alone to form a hierarchical inheritance-like pattern, just like every other aspect of the genome, which is why it is so uncontroversially accepted as indicative of relatedness.
What’s your point?
What’s the challenge? According to you, more than two out of three “of the changes” may or may not kill the embryo. The embryos that die will not pass on their mutations, so the next generation will not suffer from them. How is this a problem? And the embryos who survive the changes they endured long enough to reproduce will pass them on, forming a variant that will spread in their lineage but not to families their legacy doesn’t touch. Once again, hierarchical patterns emerge. What about any of this is supposed to raise any eyebrows whatsoever?
Deviations of what? Deviations from what?
3 Likes
I can’t speak for @John_Harshman, but I wholeheartedly support both of those claims.
1 Like
You forgot that you agreed that the tree is predicted by common descent and not by any hypothesis you have advanced.
Prediction is much, much stronger than after-the-fact explanation. You seem to be losing track of your blatant misrepresentations of the scientific method.
“Paging Herbert Morrison. Paging Herbert Morrison. Please pick up the nearest white courtesy phone.”
1 Like
Oh, the inanity!
Secret message to Discourse: buzz off
Ah, the Venn diagram again? Case closed, the argument is definitive and final!
Has it been a year or so since its last appearance? You can almost set a calendar by its reuse.
Why change a winning formula? 
I agree with common descent if the analysis is based on methodological naturalism.
The evidence looks like God is involved and that’s why the evidence in the Venn diagram is so messy for common descent to be true unless there is a gene generating mechanism yet to be discovered.
RMNS cannot explain the origin of the quantity of new genes we are observing.
Imagine being so dense you need this pointed out to you.
Now imagine having had it explained to you fifty times and still not fetting it.
Now imagine eventually getting it, then just dimissing it and continuing to argue.
You now begin to grasp the extent of the phenomenon that calls itself William Cole.
Dense and dishonest. This is why I ignore him.
1 Like