Genome sizes DO vary in closely related sub populations.


http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/1/162.full
Howzityoume, I want to apologize, I reread through your originally posts, and I did not find goal posts shifting, so please excuse my last post. I see we have had some trouble in understanding some of the term usages, and I see that your skepticism is valid if even grounded in irrationality (ie, that creation makes sense where evolution does not)

I think the last linked article if read closely will show how we are researching and attempting to understand how genome size correlates to the overall picture of evolution. Between this article and the previous one you should see that the undertaking is a serious one. What I want you to further consider is that no working explanations can be had in comparing magic (creation) to natural processes. So while you may remain skeptical that we fully understand how speciation and divergence occur at the genetic level (and rightly so), I think it only honest to admit no better theory has ever been presented. It is at this level that proper skeptical acceptance should exist. I do not BELIEVE in evolution, I accept it as the best explanation of the evidence with no contradictions to date.

Evolution answers questions, such as why we share an ERV with some primates, and not others. So many facets of evolution answer questions that no other theory has been able to answer. That in and of itself is what supports evolution and makes any other theory seem hollow for lack of the same ability to make predictions.

I did find many in accuracies in your original posts, but they are the same ones you continue to make, and that is the source of my own personal irritation.



This is just not true. I hope that some of the research I have linked will be convincing to you in that regard. We have empirical support for evolution, including changes in the size of the genome.

This is also just amazingly wrong. Comparing the set of evidence for evolution against the set of evidence for a creator is not even in the same realm of realism. The only way one comes to this conclusion is when the creator is the default, and all other evidence must be compared with a certain outcome pre-established. Science and proper skepticism do not work this way.

I studied as a physicist in college, and I do not believe matter came from nowhere. However where matter came from is unimportant to an evolutionary biologist, so this is a straw man.

DNA's origin is a tricky thing to determine, RNA on the other hand can be shown to form via nothing more than convection currents and naturally occurring organic compounds. This has been done in the lab many times. I posted a link to a video earlier in the thread that presented one of the more widely accepted hypothesis for abiogenesis. However, this again is a straw man. Evolutionary biologists do not need to know the source of the coding system to detail how it changes. Which is what evolution is all about.

On your third point I have submitted two very good links that show genone size does increase, we can map the mechanism by which this occurs, and can use statistical modeling to show how over time you can go from a small genome to a very large one, and how natural selection can pair them down, or allow them to grow dependent on the environment.




Again please see the cited links, or even do as I did and google search genome size, lots of material exists on this topic as it is one of the leading aspects of evolutionary research at the moment.



1, 2 are correct, 3 is not please see the fruit fly studies. If only we could study every human currently alive and sequences every single person's genome independently at birth . . . man we would have an awesome array of data then. Sadly, we cannot, and have not been able to do this, and thus the data is lacking . . . not the theory.

Evolutionary theory has come a long way in a short time, but the reality is that the tools needed to really delve into the genetic components of evolution are in there infancy. If we look at it from the scale of evolution itself, the time period of our growth of understanding is not even a blip on the radar. Evolution occurs on geological time scales, and we have not even been looking for the tiniest of fractions along that scale from the genetic perspective. Genetics is the most complex aspect, and the one that has the least data.

In light of that, it is quite amazing how much we have learned in so short a time.

You are correct that this is what the creation/evolution debate is about, but I don't think the creation/evolution debate is a good way to frame a conversation about truth. Its also a horrible way to approaching an understanding of what evolution really is about.

Conversations framed in this way are often filled with false dilemma fallacies.








Regarding the use of the word 'add' ? I don't see it. Or maybe I'm jumping to the wrong conclusion about what you mean by 'weaselly'.

I believe he really thought that 'increasing dna length with the addition of a new segment' was the 'most correct' use for the word 'add', and that even after the issue was pointed out, his natural habits with language were so strong that this still created misunderstanding.



Oh, that's what you meant. I have a vague impression of goal-post shifting in his dialog with Metal. Sometimes, one person's goal-post shifting is another persons 'refining understanding' or 'clarification of position'. And if he did... well you know, its easier for people to admit they made mistakes when they are not being harshly criticized for it.




I don't really understand the negativity that you and Metal seem to have towards H. Have you guys actually tried to talk to other kinds of creationists?

Yea see my previous post, I realized my mistakes.

..the problem is that mankind keeps looking for different reasons because they want to believe that they are greater than..just another organism.. ..and the conditions are right "at this time" for that organism to exist..

I don't think you have read all the posts. The amount of goal post moving is simply unbelievable. When someone twists virtually every post and professes to understand scientific concepts, that they have never heard of, better than all the scientists who have studied the topic for their careers, there is a serious credibility problem.

No matter the proof and evidence given to make a point, to him it proves his point which is just ridiculous. He says there has never been an example of blah blah blah so you show him one or more examples and he provides A. ridicule B. something swarmy about it not really meaning anything, or C. States that it actually proves his point (which really seems kinda nutty).

After awhile you realize that you are dealing with complete intellectual dishonesty and you have been wasting your time on someone who really isn't trying to learn anything. They are just taking open shots at science.

I have chatted with a number creationists that basically come from two perspectives. There are the recent Earth group which think the world is about 7,000 years old and really could care less about the theory of evolution other than their version should be taught in school as an "equal" or an "instead". They pretty much believe what they believe and that is that.

There is also the deists who believe the big bang was God's way of making things happen and science is the way he brought things to where they are today. There is therefore no conflict between Religion and science.

There are of course others too but are mainly split into versions of those two camps.

What we have here is someone who "talks" a combination of both without the scientific background to understand version two but is trying to sell a "version" of the 7,000 year old Earth. Numerous statements are made about "no examples of new beneficial genes", "evolutionists date the geology", "all complex creatures existed at the same time", "the fossil record is wrong and misinterpreted", ad infinitum and ad nauseum. It is not an intellectual discussion of religion or evolution. I don't have a lot of patience with someone to constantly twists facts.

Thanks for the apology. I haven't always used the phrase "extra beneficial non-viral coding genes" throughout this thread, but you will notice that this is always consistently what I have been looking for as proof of evolution as an explanation for the appearance of modern life-forms. I do feel I explained this pretty clearly from the start, and so I have been wondering why you guys keep giving me examples of extra beneficial NON-CODING genes to prove your position. This does not explain modern life-forms that require extra coding genes to exist. I have also been wondering why you guys have been giving me examples of changed beneficial coding genes. Anyway, I will put it down to simple misunderstandings of my terminology, understandable.

After 20 pages you still fail to realise I am asking for proof of extra beneficial (non-viral) coding genes. All the examples presented haven't actually shown this, I read those links.

And you keep misrepresenting my position, I did say the fossil record is misinterpreted, but I never said the fossil record is "wrong" as per your misrepresentation of my position. I believe evolutionists misinterpret the facts put forward by geologists, I don't believe geologists are wrong..

So too did you misrepresent my position regarding Billyclub, putting words in my mouth that I never even came close to even implying.

So frankly the very dishonesty you are accusing me of has only been displayed by you in this thread.

Just back to this, the fact that we cannot find how nature adds an extra beneficial coding gene, points towards complex life forms appearing on earth in an existing complex form. It doesn't PROVE it, its just an observation that adds some evidence to the idea that complex life-forms started out complex.

Now according to that theory of sudden appearance, and looking at the matching ERV's between apes and humans we can see a completely different picture. These two primates appeared earth with nearly matching genomes. The ERV's that subsequently inserted into the genome could only match the positions between species when those two species already had the same positions (matching genomes). Statistically when inserting 3000 ERV's into a human, and separately inserting 3000 ERV's into an ape, and only having 22000 gene positions wherein to insert them, this would mean that on average each organism has an insertion every 7th gene. (7,33 to be exact). Thus every 49th gene we should have an ERV position in an ape matching an ERV position in a human, merely through purely RANDOM processes. This would be about 400 matches of ERV positions merely through the high number of ERVs found in both primates. Among those 400 ERV's that are in identical positions, its not inconceivable that 7 of them would be both the same type of ERV and the same position.

So the fact that ERV's are found in the same position in both apes and humans merely points to the fact that apes and humans do actually have the same positions (closely matching chromosomal patterns) and so many ERV's are invading each genome. This does not point to evolution, but fits in with the theory of sudden appearance as well, the theory of sudden appearance and subsequent devolution being more observed than the evolution of new added coding genes.

. . . and here I thought we where making progress.

. .yea you didn't fully read the article. Any gene can be mutated, the more genes, coding or non coding that an organism has allows for the greater number of mutation events. Mutations can activate, or inactivate any gene. Dependent on the environment a very old gene that was once inactive could offer a benefit and get selected positively.

Complete nonsense.

More nonsense. An ERV is a specific bit of genetic code inserted by a specific virus on a specific time in history. Which explains why we do not see the same exact bit of code at the same place, with the same inactivation mutation across different species . . . unless they share common ancetry.

What you have said above, DOES NOT EXPLAIN the ERV we share in common. Random events have probabilities associated with them, what is the probability that we share the same ERV in the same location, and have the EXACT same inactivation mutation? Earlier in the thread you spoke about the incredible odds against a beneficial mutation, inactivation of a viral gene is beneficial, what are the chances of this happening in two separate species at the same time, same place in the sequence, and the same EXACT mutation?

Astronomical.

Couple this with the fused chromosome2, and it IS irrefutable evidence of common decent.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0

I'm still giving him the benefit of the doubt here. None of you have done what I would consider proper due diligence in the area of 'being sure you understand what the other is really saying before responding to it'. I personally have difficulty parsing howzits posts - the presumed meanings of words introduces confusion, and sometimes I find the sentence structure invites multiple interpretations; combine this with his apparent impression that he is being clear, and also combine this with the bit of complexity in the topic, and it makes sense to me that a great deal of honest misunderstandings would happen. Sprinkle in a dash of insults and the misunderstandings are almost guaranteed to multiply.





My impression is that Howzit is seeking his own understanding, while having an unfortunate personal investment in a particular variation of creationism. He will, ultimately, acknowledge the evidence, assuming it exists, but only when its physically manifest and clear as day - which makes him far more respect worthy, in my opinion, than a very large set of the population who are unashamedly young earth creationists.

Maybe I said that wrong, as there is ambiguity in 'acknowledge the evidence' = 'the actual observations being made' vs 'the only reasonable interpretation of the observations'. I can see why you might think his thought process is in complete denial of the evidence, but he doesn't have the benefit of your particular education nor your particular exposure to the culture of scientists.





I see all of this to be a consequence of the honest misunderstandings I alluded to earlier. He wasn't been aware of how unclear he was being, and so when evidence is presented that misses the mark (based on what he meant, rather than based on how his words were interpreted), he makes the wrong assumptions about the thought process and motive behind the presentation of that evidence.

Further, he appears to be applying a phenomenally high standard for evidence that's contrary to his worldview.



Yes, I see most creationists falling in those two groups as well. My interest is piqued when people fall outside of those two groups.s, I



Yes, and this is exactly why I'm still giving him the benefit of the doubt in a number of ways. I have a strong impression that Howzit has been immersed in the creationist discourse community, including YE creationism. I've seen many honest and intelligent people come from such communities who appear to be idiots or frauds when they engage with people people who have a stronger background in science, but they are not.

Its the people with the background in science who fail to realize how effective the creationist discourse community is at making various distortions of facts (including cherry picking) seem honest.

And I have to say - many many non-biologist pro-evolution people are every bit as much a tool of their discourse community as the creationists are. The standards of skepticism and personal investigation are low among the lay people of both camps.

Yes, sorry, I read it after I posted, and didn't feel like editing.

Off topic, but I had to do a double take. Despite my improved understanding of what you really mean, the first meaning I applied to the word pair 'extra beneficial' is "more beneficial than usual".

Oh, language.

Thank you for saying 'common decent'. The speaker in the youtube video said 'evolution'.

I want to highlight the following because I've been advocating that its more correct to use evolution to describe a process involving mutation, selection, and speciation than it is to use it to describe a particular history.

The speaker said "if we don't find [something about the missing 2 chromosomes], then evolution is wrong."

I'm calling ******** on that. If we did not find those two chromosomes, 99% of everything we actually know about the actual process of evolution would still be correct.

If we did not find the material from those two chromosomes, than at best it would be our theories about phylogeny, which is not evolution, which would be thrown completely out of whack.


Evolution is real, evolution is happening. Even if we had phylogeny all wrong, evolution would still be real, and would still be happening.

I believe that Howzit wants definite, irrefutable evidence that this has happened, or specifically, absolutely proven to have happened.

We know how it could happen.




Bushido is correct. Howzit's analysis deals with insertion locations, but does not include the size of the set of unique sequences that could be inserted. The fact that humans and non-humans have the same inserted sequence makes it almost impossible for it to happen any other way than from a single insertion event in a common ancestor.

It has been a while sense I have done battle on this front, much of my lag of response is finding time to review material to make sure I understand and clearly represent the ACTUAL science.

Creationist websites have gotten good at confusing the subject. In fact when you google some things such as ERV, and evolution you tend to find more creationists sites than real science.

Massage, I wanted to thank you for your approach. I am not certain of howzityoume level of honesty, but I agree he should be given the benefit of the doubt . . . up to a point.

If he really is interested in this subject, he should fully read, and in fact reread the presented evidence.

In my search for truth on this regard, that lead me from IDiot to science advocate was a long one, and I spent many evenings reading and rereading the evidence and the history of how we have developed the theory of evolution.

I kind of expect anyone with an honest intellect, and desire to understand to the same thing. If you cant spend hours regurgitating the claims from creationists site you can do the same by starting at the beginning of the historical perspective of evolution and then working toward the details of genetics.

Surely the phrase "same inserted sequence" is another way of saying "the same virus", each virus having its own sequence "signature" . These viruses have separate sequences and are identified separately and are named accordingly. For 400 matching virus positions, 7 of these happen to be the same virus. I do not see a statistical problem with this. Maybe someone has the data which virus is most commonly expressed in the 3000 or so HERV's. Without that information we cannot exclude the possibilities I've put forward.

The problem with how it could happen is that when you get two duplicate genes that are both protein coding, you get too much protein produced for that trait, and the entire organism is not designed to handle the over-expression of that particular trait. You end up with a damaged mutation (eg Down's syndrome)

So the theory and observation both point to damages when you increase the number of protein coding genes in an organism. The best you can get to, is neutral, the sum of the functions in the duplicated genome being equal to the functions that existed previously, commonly referred to as subfuntionalisation.

ps I realised that my biological views have already got a name, I adhere to the Neutralists Theory.

So if you wish to oppose the Neutralist theory you need :
1) a theoretical mechanism to bypass the damages that extra proteins cause
2) Some observation that this can occur in nature

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE5bNeutraltheory.shtml It does not mean what you think it means . . . this is a theme.

I see what you mean, thank for pointing this out, the definition does seem to differ to the one I had:

Wikipedia: Molecular evolution
"The Neutral theory of molecular evolution states that most mutations are deleterious and quickly removed by natural selection, but of the remaining ones, the vast majority are neutral with respect to fitness while the amount of advantageous mutations is vanishingly small. The fate of neutral mutations are governed by genetic drift, and contribute to both nucleotide polymorphism and fixed differences between species.[6][7][8]"

LOL well maybe I should change the goalpost and ask for proof of super-beneficial genes! Why not, what would slightly beneficial genes do to bacteria , produce a human?

hahaha